Application by JSC & RSC [2013] NSWSC 440

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Application by JSC & RSC [2013] NSWSC 440 Hearing dates: IN CHAMBERS Decision date: 30 April 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Adoption List Before: Hallen J Decision: Order for the transfer of the parentage of the child. Catchwords: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - Surrogacy - Application for parentage order under Surrogacy Act 2010 in relation to child of a surrogacy arrangement entered into after the commencement of Act - Application by married couple - Court may make parentage order upon compliance with preconditions provided by the Act and by UCPR Part 56A - Satisfaction of certain preconditions - Relevant preconditions specified are mandatory - Other non-mandatory preconditions may be waived if exceptional circumstances exist - UCPR rule 56A.9 - Insufficient evidence of legal advice given in present case - Subsequently provided - Court able to make parentage order Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Surrogacy Act 2010 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Cases Cited: Application of AP [2011] NSWSC 1389 Application of MM & KF, Re [2012] NSWSC 445 Lowe v Barry [2011] FAMCA 625 Texts Cited: P Langan, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th ed (1969), Sweet & Maxwell Category: Principal judgment Parties: JSC and RSC and CAG and CIG File Number(s): 201/2012

Judgment - IN Chambers

The Background 1HIS HONOUR: The Plaintiffs, JSC and RSC, a married couple, as intended parents, apply for a parentage order, under the Surrogacy Act 2010 ("the Act"), in respect of the child HR, who was born in June 2012. In the proceedings, the birth mother, CAG, and her husband, CIG, are named as the Defendants. 2The Plaintiffs' application has been dealt with in Chambers, in the absence of the public and without any attendance by, or on behalf of, the parties: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules ("UCPR") rule 56A.4(1). Neither of the parties had made an application for a preliminary hearing which would prevent this occurring. 3However, for reasons to which I shall come, it is necessary to publish these reasons to avoid other parties having the same deficiency in evidence and the consequent delay, that has occurred in this case. The deficiency of evidence has now been remedied. Hopefully, legal representatives of other parties making an application of this type will ensure that all of the mandatory preconditions specified in the Act and the evidence required by the UCPR are satisfied.