header-logo header-logo

09 October 2014
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-detail

Surrogacy protection boost

Ruling good news for parents in international arrangements

Senior family judge, Sir James Munby has ruled against a strict six-month deadline for parental orders where a child is born to a surrogate mother.

The case, in Re X (A Child: Surrogacy: Time Limit) [2014] EWHC 3135, concerned a child, X, born in India to a surrogate mother using eggs donated by a third party and the intended father’s sperm in December 2011, and who entered the UK on a British passport in July 2013. Under s 54(1)(c) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, a court can grant a parental order as long as the intended parents apply within six months from the date of birth. The parents of X were unaware of this law.

Claire Wood, Kingsley Napley family law solicitor, said the judgment gave children “better legal protection. This [six-month] requirement has long been criticised by surrogacy law specialists as there is no justification for an absolute deadline. We have seen this time limit extended in this case which is good news for the thousands of parents involved each year in international surrogacy arrangements.”

Natalie Gamble, partner at Natalie Gamble Associates, specialists in surrogacy and fertility law, said: “Many parents do not properly address the legalities after surrogacy abroad (whether innocently or knowingly), and the long term consequences for their children are potentially grave, with looming problems over inheritance, guardianship, nationality, financial maintenance, medical decision-making and many other basic rights.

“For children living in the black hole of unresolved legal status, this ruling is welcome because it means the door may not be closed to a remedy.”

Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll