Family Law Hub

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30

Judgment, published: 31/12/2004

Items referring to this

  • This was a case in which the judge did not feel it was appropriate for him to cross-examine the child (who had made allegations against her step father) in a situation where the father was not represented or eligible for legal aid. The judge said instead that the court should arrange for a legal representative to be appointed to cross-examine the child on behalf of the father and that the cost of this should be met by HMCTS. The Lord Chancellor appealed and the appeal was allowed, the court saying that in the present case, which was fairly straightforward, the judge should probably have decided to conduct the questioning himself. The nature of this case was such that there were options available to the judge which would have ensured a fair hearing and vindicated the article 6 and 8 rights of the father and the other children involved. Judgment, 22/05/2015, free
  • The claimant was seeking a Declaration that it was lawful for the sperm of her husband who died in 2012 to be stored beyond 18 April 2015 and for a period of up to 55 years until 18 April 2060 so that it can be used by her for the purposes of conceiving a child or children. The Declaration was granted. Judgment, 17/03/2014, free
  • When section 54(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 provides that in certain circumstances the court may make a parental order on the application of "two people", is it open to the court to make such an order on the application of one person? Can section 54(1) be 'read down' in accordance with section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to enable that to be done? These were the questions raised for decision here and in Munby P's judgment the answer to each question was clear: No Judgment, 08/09/2015, free
  • Father of a child born to a surrogate mother was seeking a declaration of incompatibility in that Sections 54(1) and (2) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 are incompatible under Article 14 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 8 insofar as they prevent the father from obtaining a parental order on the sole ground of his status as a single person as opposed to being part of a couple. Judgment, 20/05/2016, free

Published: 31/12/2004

Copyright 

Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.

Disclaimer

The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item