Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Surrogacy

  • 14 Apr 2026

    A 及另一人 對 D

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2151
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP155/2026

    The court refused permission for substituted service to a Mainland address because service of the writ in the Mainland must be effected via the prescribed Mainland–HKSAR judicial arrangement and Order 11 r.5A(1) requires transmission through Mainland judicial authorities; the attempted private service by the applicants’ agent was therefore legally ineffective and substituted service by post was not justified; the applicants must therefore effect service of the writ via the Arrangement before further steps are taken.

  • 2 Feb 2026

    HSC AND ANOTHER v. T

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 770
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP706/2025

    Court found statutory conditions in s.12 PCO satisfied: embryos created using Husband's gametes, children living with applicants, applicants domiciled/connected to Hong Kong, surrogates freely consented. Applicants acted in good faith and without moral taint; the disputed payments were not disproportionate in the context and appropriate sums were approved. Delay beyond six months was justified by ignorance and attempts to remedy status; extension of time granted. On that basis parental orders were granted for both boys and specified payments were approved, balancing illegality concerns with p…

  • 10 Jun 2025

    HSC AND ANOTHER v. 丁

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2483
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP707/2025

    Substituted service was refused because no attempt had been made to effect service by the prescribed methods or to seek service out of jurisdiction, service via the agent was unreliable and the surrogates' consents did not excuse proper service; interim care and control was refused in the absence of emergency or established legal motherhood of the Wife; leave was granted to adduce further expert evidence on PRC law and to file a further affirmation to clarify whether and how PRC law permits surrender/transfer of maternal rights and whether surrogates can assist in Hong Kong identity card/sing…

  • 10 Jun 2025

    HSC AND ANOTHER v. 田

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2483
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP706/2025

    Substituted service via the agent was refused because no attempts were made to effect service by prescribed methods, substituted service cannot be justified by speed alone, the proposed agent was unreliable and unqualified to effect service, and written consents did not extinguish procedural requirements; application for interim care and control was dismissed for lack of necessity or emergency and because the Wife's legal maternal status was not established; leave was granted to file a further PRC expert report and further affirmation to address whether Surrogates can relinquish maternal righ…

  • 30 Apr 2024

    HC formerly known as HWH v. WYH

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1157
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC3/2023

    A child born by surrogacy may be a 'child of the family' under s2 MPPO if the commissioning parents have treated the child as a child of their family; therefore the court (Family Court or CFI) has jurisdiction under s19(1) MPPO to make custody and maintenance orders for such children without a parental order or adoption order being in place, subject to protecting any third party rights under s19(2).

  • 28 Jul 2023

    HC formerly known as HWH v. WYH

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 146
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2719/2022

    Given unresolved legal uncertainty about the legal status of surrogate children under PCO, HRTO and GMO and the limits of the Family Court's powers, the District Judge declined to make final custody orders for the two surrogate children and transferred the proceedings to the Court of First Instance to enable the exercise of inherent jurisdiction and fuller consideration; custody and maintenance orders were made for the parties' elder son and ancillary directions were given to protect the surrogate children's interests pending High Court disposal.

  • 23 Sept 2021

    S AND ANOTHER v. T

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2854
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP461/2021

    Court held that all statutory conditions in section 12(1)-(6) PCO were satisfied, the Applicants acted in good faith, the payments (total approx HKD 310,000) were not disproportionate to reasonable expenses and/or were properly authorized retrospectively, and that the child's lifelong welfare required the making of a parental order; accordingly the parental order was made and payments authorized, with the child dewarded.

  • 8 Jul 2021

    RE LH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 1998
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP707/2021

    Although the Court has jurisdiction under s12(7) PCO to give prior authorization of payments, it will not authorize any payments under the intended Agency Agreement because that Agreement would constitute a commercial surrogacy in breach of s17 HRTO and is therefore illegal under Hong Kong law; illegality precludes authorization of the projected expenses and the originating summons is dismissed.

  • 15 Jul 2019

    FH AND ANOTHER v. WB AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1748
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1313/2018

    The court held that the welfare of the child is paramount in s.12 PCO applications and on that basis the court has power to extend the 6-month limit in s.12(2) by reading it down where necessary except in the clearest abuse of public policy; applying statutory interpretation, rights protection and precedents the court extended time by 22 months, granted a parental order, authorized retrospective approval of specified payments (USD 62,500) under s.12(7) PCO because applicants acted in good faith and no public policy abuse was shown, and declined to read down HRTO ss.17/39 in this case without…

  • 7 Oct 2014

    RE Section 12 of the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap 429)

    Citation
    RE Section 12 of the Parent and Child Ordinance (Cap 429)
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP60/2014

    Given the novelty, potential conflict between local statutory provisions (s12(7) Parent and Child Ordinance and HRTO prohibitions), the international elements (California orders and law), and the need for an authoritative Hong Kong decision, the District Court should transfer the proceedings to the Court of First Instance for determination; ancillary interim measures regarding the child's removal and disclosure of the Social Welfare assessment are appropriate.