In re Z (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy: Parental Order) – WLR Daily

In re Z (A Child) (Foreign Surrogacy: Parental Order): [2015] EWFC 73; [2015] WLR (D) 375

‘Since section 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provided that in certain circumstances the court might make a parental order on the application of “two people”, it was not open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person only; nor could section 54(1) be “read down” in accordance with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 to enable that to be done.’

WLR Daily, 7th September 2015


Where do the boundaries lie? MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411 – No. 5 Chambers

‘Sir James Munby, President of the Court of Protection, provided clear guidance as to the nature of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction, and the approach that should be adopted when a care provider is unwilling to provide, or to fund, the care sought.’

Full story

No. 5 Chambers, 2nd September 2015


Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and another – WLR Daily

Posted March 21st, 2011 in declaratory judgment, enforcement, law reports, planning, rights of way by sally

Milebush Properties Ltd v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council and another [2011] EWCA Civ 270; [2011] WLR (D) 96

“Although the court had a wide discretion to grant declaratory relief in diverse circumstances in both public and private law proceedings, where a party who was not a party to the contract brought private proceedings seeking declaratory relief to enforce a public authority’s planning obligation the court would not lend its assistance.”

WLR Daily, 17th March 2011


Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Hawkes v Cuddy and Others – Times Law Reports

Posted November 13th, 2007 in company directors, declaratory judgment, insolvency, law reports by sally

Judge’s order inappropriate

Hawkes v Cuddy and Others

Court of Appeal

“It was inappropriate to make a declaratory judgment on an interlocutory application based on an allegation of contravention of the Companies Act 1985 when that would serve no useful purpose.”

The Times, 13th November 2007


Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.