© PAIt is only the second time a court has been asked to rule on a dispute between two parents over MMR
The girls' mother did not want them to have the inoculations because she was worried about possible side-effects, but their father insisted they should have them.
The girls, referred to in court documents only as L and M, told Mrs Justice Theis they did not want to have the vaccine, but the judge ruled it was "in their best interests" to do so.
The decision was made last month, but the deadline for the girls' vaccinations passed yesterday. The case came to light after court papers were obtained by BBC2's Newsnight programme.
It is only the second time a court has been asked to rule on a dispute between two parents over MMR, and the first to involve children of such advanced years.
The judge said "weight should be attached to the wishes of mature children," but the girls, who live with their mother, were caught up in an "unfortunate" parental dispute and felt they would be letting their mother down if they gave in.
The parents, Mr and Mrs F, were married in 1996, and agreed that L should be given the MMR jab as a baby.
But following concerns raised over MMR by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998, the couple decided L should not be given her booster and M should have no vaccination at all.
Following the couple's separation in 2011, Mr F claimed he had been a "reluctant participant" in the decision and had become "increasingly concerned" that his daughters were not protected against measles, mumps and rubella, particularly after Dr Wakefield was discredited, and partly because of the recent measles outbreak in Wales.
Mrs F disagreed, particularly in the case of L, who has received counselling for anxiety and objects to the vaccine because she is a vegan and it contains gelatine.
Mrs F told the court: "Parents have a choice to do what they feel in their hearts they really believe." She described the father's behaviour as "bullish" and said it had made her "distressed". Her daughters would be "traumatised" if they were forced to have the jabs, she added, and they would feel "resentment and confusion at not having been listened to".
The father said his daughters were "angry" with him and thought he was "trying to exert control on the mother and using them as a vehicle to do this".
The judge described the girls as "charming, intelligent, articulate and thoughtful" but said their doctor suggested they were "naïve" about the vaccine and about healthcare in general.
She told Mr and Mrs F that parents explaining to their children why they had to take decisions against their wishes was "what parenting is about" and was "confident" they would be able to have the girls inoculated without damaging their relationships with them.
I wonder if the father works for big pharma and how much the judge received from him.