A woman who wants to use her daughter's frozen eggs to give birth to her own grandchild has won a Court of Appeal battle.

The 60-year-old, whose daughter died of cancer in 2011, had asked three judges to allow her to carry out the dying wishes of her "much-loved and only child".

Lawyers for the woman and her husband, referred to only as Mr and Mrs M, said that if they did not overturn the High Court's dismissal of the case, the inevitable consequence would be that the eggs would be allowed to perish.

On Thursday in London, Sir James Munby, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Burnett allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) for further consideration.

Mr and Mrs M were not in court for the ruling.

The judges heard that the daughter, referred to as A, was desperate to have children and asked her mother to ''carry my babies".

Her parents launched legal action against the HFEA's refusal in September 2014 to allow them to take their daughter's eggs to a US fertility treatment clinic to be used with donor sperm.

The HFEA said the eggs could not be released from storage in London because the daughter did not give her full written consent before she died of bowel cancer at the age of 28.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Ouseley, ruled that the independent regulator had been entitled to find the daughter had not given the required consent and declared there had been no breach of the family's human rights.

The parents' counsel, Jenni Richards QC, told the Court of Appeal that there was "clear evidence" of what A wanted to happen to her eggs after she died, and that "all available evidence" showed she wanted her mother to have her child after death.

Catherine Callaghan, for the HFEA, said that it was natural to feel sympathy for the parents' loss and for their wish to keep their daughter's memory alive.

But, the court's role was not to decide whether it would have permitted the mother to undergo fertility treatment using her deceased daughter's eggs and donated sperm.

Its task was to determine whether Mr Justice Ouseley erred in concluding that the HFEA's statutory approvals committee acted lawfully and rationally in exercising its broad discretion to refuse to authorise export of the frozen eggs.

Giving the court's ruling, Lady Justice Arden said the challenge succeeded at three levels.

"First, there was on the face of it the misstatement of certain of the evidence about A's consent by the committee.

"Second, even if what the committee meant was that there was a lack of effective consent because the appellants could not show that A received information on certain matters, the decision was flawed because the committee pointed to the lack of certain evidence without explaining why A needed to receive that information and give that consent.

"The third level is that the committee did not ask the prior question of what information the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act required to be given to A in the circumstances of her case."

She said the decision must be set aside and remitted to the committee for further consideration of Mr and Mrs M's export application.