This article considers recent English case law addressing the issue of whether court approval is required for the commencement of hormone treatment for minors with Gender Dysphoria. In particular, the decision in Bell v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 1363 is considered for the purpose of both distinguishing the legal framework in England from the body of Australian law on this topic, as well as considering whether the case may potentially impact on Australian law moving forward. One important aspect of the Court of Appeal's decision in Bell, which overturned the lower court's decision, is that the case clarifies how the principle of Gillick-competency should be applied in this context. The Court of Appeal held that in line with the House of Lords' reasoning in Gillick, the assessment of a minor's capacity is for the relevant treating health care professional(s) to assess rather than judges. This interpretation may potentially impact on how this principle is applied in the Australian cases relevant to minors and Gender Dysphoria, particularly those that have required an application to court in circumstances where a minor's parent(s) disagree with the conclusion of a treating clinician who has assessed their child as Gillick-competent for the purpose of consenting to hormone treatment.