header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Law digests: 25 September 2020

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
23 September 2020
Issue: 7903 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Making Big Tech pay for digital addiction
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: Leaseholders stuck in limbo
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
NLJ this week: When a trial period becomes a ‘reasonable adjustment’
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
NLJ this week: Ignore covenants at your peril
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
NLJ this week: Courts caught in a ‘hierarchy of privacy’
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll