Two women launched a ground-breaking high court action yesterday to try to save their frozen embryos from destruction after their relationships broke down and their former partners withdrew consent for the embryos to be used in IVF treatment.

Lawyers for Natallie Evans, 30, from Trowbridge in Wiltshire, and Lorraine Hadley, from Baswich near Stafford, lodged papers at the high court challenging the law that says both parties must consent to the storage and use of frozen embryos created from a man's sperm and a woman's eggs.

Ms Evans's action is over six frozen embryos, created from her eggs and the sperm of her former fiance, Howard Johnston, and placed in storage before she had treatment for ovarian cancer which left her infertile. After the treatment she was advised to wait before attempting to conceive, but in the meantime Mr Johnston ended the relationship and asked for the embryos to be destroyed.

Ms Hadley, 37, has two embryos in storage dating from her relationship with her ex-husband, Wayne. She has a 17-year-old daughter from a previous relationship, but a medical condition has since left her with fertility problems.

She underwent an unsuccessful course of treatment with Mr Hadley, before he left her for another woman. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, if either party withdraws consent the embryos must be destroyed.

The women's solicitor, Muiris Lyons, said that the case, the first such in the UK, was due before Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the high court's family division, on September 19. The women, funded by legal aid, will argue that the law breaches their human rights.

In the US, where there have been several such cases, most courts have ruled in favour of the man, but in at least one case a woman was successful.

Mr Lyons said: "The result will affect everyone undertaking IVF treatment. The law as it stands gives their respective former partners a complete veto. They say that is unfair and discriminatory.

"It is important from the wider public aspect that the law is clarified, because there is ambiguity at the moment. If it doesn't result in them being able to use the embryos we will challenge the law as being unfair and discriminatory."

He said the two women were being discriminated against because they were infertile. If they had become pregnant naturally and the embryos were in their bodies, then their partners would have no say.

Ms Evans said court action was necessary because negotiations with her former fiance had failed.

Mr Johnston's solicitor said in a statement issued on his behalf last month: "Mr Johnston has had to take into account the fact that he would have ongoing legal, financial and moral responsibilities for any child. It is for the above reasons that, after much consideration, Mr Johnston has reached the unenviable decision to withdraw his consent."

The statement said he had "a great deal of sympathy" for Ms Evans and hoped her wish for children could be satisfied in some other way, "perhaps by the use of a donor egg".