This matter was an inherent (protective) jurisdiction decision which concerned the withdrawal of ventilation (as sought by the clinicians) or the provision of innovative nucleoside therapy in the USA (as sought by the parents) for a then 8 month old child, Charlie Gard.
The parents appealed from the first instance decision. The appellate reasons are now available: Yates & Gard v Great Ormond Street Hospital  EWCA Civ 410.
A new argument was made for the parents (at ), to the effect that
- the lower court erred in making an order that prevented Charlie from receiving treatment in a reputable hospital overseas, when there was no risk of harm; and
- the court had no jurisdiction to make an order on the application of one clinical team preventing a second team from providing reasonable treatment.
The new arguments were not accepted and the appeal refused.