header-logo header-logo

23 September 2020
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 25 September 2020

Children & young persons

Re C (a child) (parental order and child arrangements order) [2020] EWHC 2141 (Fam), [2020] All ER (D) 27 (Sep)

A surrogate child (C) had his ‘home’ with the father and the mother (the parents), within the meaning of s 54(4)(a) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, notwithstanding that the parents were separated and lived in two separate households. The Family Division so ruled, having given a wide and purposive interpretation of the word ‘home’. Accordingly, the court granted a parental order in favour of the parents. Further, and among other things, the court held that it was in C’s welfare best interests to make a child arrangements order that he live with his father (with whom he currently lived) and spent time with his mother.


Contract

Lodha Developers 1 GSQ Ltd v 1 GSQ 1 Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 2356 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 30 (Sep)

The claimant company sought summary judgment for: (i) a declaration that a sale and purchase agreement

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

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
back-to-top-scroll