First surrogacy application under common law where commisioning parents did not have to adopt their child June 2009

Ex Parte CJD and Others (53101/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 717; 2018 (3) SA 197 (GP) (17 November 2017)

  • The Court had to consider how the fact that the parties do not live together and the fact that HN does not want his sexual orientation to be made public will impact on the best interests of the unborn child.
  • The parties do not share a common household.

Ex Parte HPP and Others; Ex Parte DME and Others (45037/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 70; [2017] 2 All SA 171 (GP); 2017 (4) SA 528 (GP) (9 February 2017)

  • Whether the surrogacy facilitation agreements constitute a transgression of sec 301 of the Children's Act; and
  • Whether the court could confirm the surrogate motherhood agreements if it is found that the agreements between Ms Strydom and the applicants were unlawful.

MS & OTHERS Ex parte: M S & Others (48856/2010) [2014] ZAGPPHC 457 (2 December 2013)

  • The applicants in the present case filed substantial papers in support of their application for the confirmation of their surrogacy agreement post-fertilisation.
  • The Judge took note that the application was made at a late stage in the third respondent's pregnancy, and that this was by no means ideal.
  • The judge was satisfied that the parties have met all of the requirements set out in section 292 and 295 of the Act and had no doubt that it is in the best interests of the child soon to be born out of this surrogacy arrangement that the agreement be validated through confirmation by this Court.