Natallie Evans should have been offered the chance to have some of her eggs fertilised by a donor (or maybe she was offered and said no, I don't know). Then she would have been able to have full control of the embryos with or without her (by then) ex's consent.
There isn't any legal personhood for embryos in the UK (rightly of course because the concept is so ludicrous and damaging to women) so her case tried a different tack, to test the limits of joint consent when it is given at the outset of a lengthy procedure. The argument failed, rightly IMO.
It must have been awful for Natallie Evans but it wasn't that she couldn't ever have a baby, but that she couldn't have the chance of a baby using her own eggs and her ex's sperm. She could still have carried another embryo donor egg and someone else's sperm or had a child another way.
She may have ended up in that position anyway if implantation had failed but it was clearly devastating for her not to be able to even try. I felt very sorry for her too even though her case shouldn't have got off the ground really as the judgement against her argument seemed inevitable.
One of the results of her case is couples going through IVF are now encouraged to talk about what would happen if they broke up part way through treatment.
The Vergara case seems to be all about an angry ex husband trying to take advantage of pro life legislation to get hold of his ex wife's money via her trust fund she had set up to look after her kids. That's a horrible reason to try to bring children into the world and seems to be about punishment and control.
I've seen no report that the ex husband is azoospermic and so could have no other genetically related child without using those embryos. It's not like the Evans case where the motivation was very different.