Legal Case Summary
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112
CONSENT– CAPACITY OF MINORS – COMPETENCE TO CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT
Facts of Gillick
Mrs Gillick was a mother of five children, one of whom had sought and received contraceptive advice from a local doctor whilst below the age at which she could lawfully consent to intercourse. This advice was provided pursuant to guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Security. Mrs Gillick sought a declaration from the court that the Department’s guidance was unlawful as, amongst other things, it adversely interfered with parental rights and duties.
Issues in Gillick
Gillick was a landmark decision which raised a number of complex legal issues. The House of Lords were called upon to resolve, first and foremost, the extent of the parental right to control a minor child and when, and indeed whether, such a minor could receive contraceptive advice, or consent to medical treatment, against the wishes or knowledge of their parents. Finally, it fell to be determined whether a doctor, in exercising his or her clinical duty, would be guilty of a criminal offence by providing contraception or advice to underage patients.
Decision/Outcome of Gillick
The application for a declaration was dismissed. Parental rights, as such, did not exist, except insofar as necessary to safeguard the best interests of a minor. In some circumstances a minor would be able to give consent in their own right, without the knowledge or approval of their parents. The test proposed by Lord Scarman posits that a minor will be able to consent to treatment if they demonstrate “sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed” ([1986] AC 112, 187[D]). The test is now often referred to as ‘Gillick competence’ and is an integral aspect of medical and family law.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 remains broadly accurate. The case continues to be good law and the concept of Gillick competence remains a cornerstone of medical and family law in England and Wales.
However, readers should be aware of two important subsequent developments. First, the courts have clarified that Gillick competence does not give a minor an absolute right to refuse treatment, as distinct from consenting to it. In Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1992] Fam 11 and Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction) [1993] Fam 64, the Court of Appeal held that a competent minor’s refusal of treatment could be overridden by those with parental responsibility or by the court. The article does not address this distinction, which is a material limitation for readers seeking a full understanding of the legal position.
Second, the test of Gillick competence has been applied and developed in a wide range of subsequent cases, including in the context of mental health treatment and decisions about serious or life-threatening procedures. Readers should also note that in Scotland, the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991, s 2(4) provides a statutory framework for medical consent by minors, which differs from the common law position in England and Wales described here.
