Re: G2  FWCA 98 (on AUSTLII) is a first instance decision following on from and applying the approach of Watts J in Re Imogen (No 6) (2020) 61 Fam LR 344. The effect of Re Imogen was summarised as below.
However in this matter the first respondent (which seems in effect to be the clinic providing gender dysphoria treatment) was joined and submitted (at ) that the Court should exercise its welfare jurisdiction nothwithstanding Re Imogen, given the findings of the court in Bell v Tavistock, which remain on appeal and the absence of any local legislative framework. (referring to R (on the application of) Quincy Bell and A v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and others  EWHC 3274)., The position of the clinic was further explained at  such that pending a review of its service it had taken the view that::
(a) in all cases of treatment for Gender Dysphoria an application should be made to the Court seeking permission for treatment to proceed;
(b) the child should be separately represented;
(c) in matters of complexity or dispute, the Court might consider the assistance of a contravener; and
(d) in cases where the child is Gillick competent, 16 years of age or older and the parents consent to and support the treatment and there is agreement by the clinicians, the first respondent is likely neither to consent to nor oppose the application.
The court proceeded on that basis and was satisfied that G2 (aged 16 years) was competent to consent to stage 2 treatment (at ).
Effect of Re Imogen (summarised at ).
(a) If a parent or a medical practitioner of an adolescent disputes:
(i) The Gillick competence of an adolescent; or
(ii) A diagnosis of gender dysphoria; or
(iii) Proposed treatment for gender dysphoria,
an application to this Court is mandatory;
(b) Whether mandatory or not, once an application is made, the court should make a finding about Gillick competence of an adolescent. If the only dispute is as to Gillick competence, the court should determine that dispute by way of a declaration, pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act, as to whether or not the adolescent is Gillick competent, without the need to make a determination based upon best interest considerations. If a declaration of Gillick competence is made, then that is determinative of the only dispute before the court and the adolescent is left to determine their treatment without court authorisation;
(c) Notwithstanding a finding of Gillick competence, if there is a dispute about diagnosis or treatment, the court should:
(i) Determine the diagnosis;
(ii) Determine whether treatment is appropriate, having regard to the adolescent’s best interests as the paramount consideration; and
(iii) Make an order authorising or not authorising treatment pursuant to s 67ZC of the Act on best interest considerations;
(d) If a parent or legal guardian does not consent to an adolescent’s treatment for gender dysphoria, a medical practitioner, who is willing to do so, should not administer treatment to an adolescent who wishes it, without court authorisation.