The Court of Appeal held that the use of the inherent jurisdiction was not appropriate in the case of routine vaccinations; under section 100 of the Children Act 1989 a local authority requires the court’s leave to make an application for the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. That leave can only be granted if there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm. Refusal to vaccinate a child is a permissible exercise of parental responsibility and a parent who refused all vaccinations would not be crossing the threshold of likely significant harm to their child. The local authority could not claim that the vaccinations had to be ordered under the inherent jurisdiction to prevent significant harm. The Court of Appeal did find that a local authority with a care order can give consent for a child to be vaccinated despite the objections of the parents, but pointed out that the parents would still need to be consulted and to have the opportunity to challenge the decision to vaccinate if they chose.

中文翻译：

---

北爱尔兰

上诉法院认为，在常规疫苗接种的情况下，使用固有管辖权是不合适的；根据 1989 年《儿童法》第 100 条，地方当局需要法院许可才能申请行使固有管辖权。只有在有合理理由相信该儿童可能会遭受重大伤害的情况下，才能给予该假期。拒绝给孩子接种疫苗是父母责任的一种允许行为，拒绝所有疫苗接种的父母不会越过可能对其孩子造成重大伤害的门槛。地方当局不能声称必须在固有管辖权下订购疫苗以防止重大伤害。