Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court approved trustees’ proposed advancement to let the life tenant add his surrogate-born son to the trust’s beneficiary class.
The High Court granted multiple parental orders in surrogacy cases, authorised non-expenses payments, extended time limits where needed, and held welfare is paramount.
A & B v C & D (Rev1) [2026] EWHC 972 (Fam) (14 April 2026)
Family Division judgment on parental orders in surrogacy cases, holding that welfare is paramount when authorising payments above reasonable expenses under section 54(8) HFEA 2008.
The Upper Tribunal held that monthly surrogacy payments received by a JSA claimant were income, not capital, and were not subject to any disregard. The appeal was dismissed.
The Family Court granted a parental order for a child born through anonymous Nigerian surrogacy, finding the surrogate could not be found and H’s welfare favoured the order.
B & Anor v D & Anor [2025] EWFC 366 (29 October 2025)
The Family Court granted a parental order after finding the anonymous surrogate could not be found, despite serious concerns about the surrogacy arrangement.
K & Anor v Z & Anor [2025] EWHC 927 (Fam) (16 April 2025)
The High Court granted a parental order after a Californian surrogacy arrangement, and authorised payments above reasonable expenses, while stressing future welfare planning.
W, Re (Foreign Surrogacy: Consent and Welfare) [2025] EWFC 85 (02 April 2025)
The Family Court granted a parental order in a cross-border surrogacy case, holding that the surrogate’s consent was valid on the evidence and authorising the payments made.
X (Foreign Surrogacy: Consent) [2025] EWFC 71 (26 March 2025)
The Family Court granted parental orders for twin girls born through a Nigerian surrogacy, finding the statutory criteria, valid consent, and welfare test were met.
The father’s evidence of repeated domestic abuse perpetrated by the mother is credible, reliable, and supported by independent evidence. The mother’s allegations against the father are false, maliciously made, and unsupported by any credible evidence. The mother breached non-molestation injunctions and caused emotional harm to X through inappropriate behaviour. The mother’s non-engagement and inconsistent actions undermine her credibility and support adverse findings against her.
Source excerpt
Explore more
