header-logo header-logo

23 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Family proceedings

A and another v C and another [2016] EWFC 42, [2016] All ER (D) 186 (Jul)

 

The Family Court held that parental orders would be granted in a case where the applicants were parents to three children who had been born after surrogacy arrangements had been commissioned in the US, but the applicants had not made their application until several years after expiry of the six month time limit in s 54(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The applicants had made the application promptly after they had become aware of the need to do so. In the circumstances, there was no prejudice suffered if the application was granted, and the welfare of the children required a parental order to be made so as to extinguish the residual parental rights of the respondents.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll