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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll