Malaysian and International Surrogacy Advisory
Edward Ng & Partners is proud to be recognized for its excellence in legal services and commitment to delivering outstanding results for clients. Our firm has been nominated as the top Finalist at the ALB Malaysia Law Awards 2026 in the category of “Dispute Resolution Boutique Law Firm of the Year“.
Explore our Malaysian and International Surrogacy Advisory for legal guidance and insights on surrogacy-related matters in Malaysia. Our resources examine the legal considerations affecting intended parents, birth mothers and children, including parentage, birth registration, citizenship, nationality, adoption, family law and cross-border surrogacy arrangements. Each article provides an overview of the relevant Malaysian legal framework, court decisions and practical legal issues, helping individuals and families better understand the legal implications, risks and challenges associated with surrogacy in Malaysia.
Relevant Legal Articles
LIFELONG WELFARE AS THE CENTRALCONSIDERATION (UK Cases)
The applicants, a husband and wife, turned to international surrogacy in Russia after a long and arduous 16-year journey to become parents, which included 15 unsuccessful IVF cycles,. Their son, C, was born in 2012 following an agreement with a Russian agency, using the husband’s sperm and a donor egg,.…
LIMITS OF WELFARE (SURROGATE CONSENT) (UK Cases)
The commissioning parents, A and B, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India using B’s sperm and a donor egg,. Twins, C and D, were born in December 2011 and brought to the UK in 2012,. The parents separated shortly after their return but remained living in the same home…
MODERN WELFARE AND SAFEGUARDING ANALYSIS (UK Cases)
The applicants, a male same-sex couple (A and B) living in the UK, sought to start a family through a Cypriot surrogacy agency. Although the agency was based in Cyprus, the surrogacy involved an embryo transfer in Northern Cyprus using a surrogate (X) from “Country Y,” a jurisdiction that does…
PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES (UK Cases)
The commissioning parents, a married couple domiciled in the United Kingdom, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India. The child, X, was born in December 2011 using the father’s sperm and a donor egg. Due to the parents’ lack of awareness regarding the specific legal requirements of the Human Fertilisation…
REVOCATION OF ADOPTION (UK Cases)
The applicants, X and Y, were a same-sex couple who sought fertility treatment at St Bartholomew’s Hospital (the clinic). X gave birth to their first child, C1, in 2010. Both parents intended for Y to be a legal parent and believed they had signed all necessary HFEA consent forms. Years…
DOCTRINE OF RECTIFICATION (UK Cases)
The case involved a same-sex couple, X and Y, who underwent IVF treatment at a licensed clinic. Y, the gestational mother, gave birth to twins conceived using X’s biological eggs. Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008, for X to be recognized as a legal parent, specific forms…
RECTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTATION (UK Cases)
The case involved eight separate applications (Cases P through X) heard together due to their similar legal issues regarding assisted reproduction provided by clinics regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Six women and two men sought declarations under Section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986 that…
ADMINISTRATIVE INCOMPETENCE AND INTENT (UK Cases)
The litigation arose following an audit by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which revealed that 46% of licensed clinics had discovered “anomalies” in their records regarding parental consent. Under Sections 37 and 44 of the HFEA 2008, legal parenthood for a non-biological partner is contingent upon both the…
PARENTAL AGE AND FUTURE PLANNING (UK Cases)
The applicants, Mr and Mrs K, were both 72 years old and retired at the time of their application. Following the tragic death of their only son from cancer in 2020, they decided to embark on a surrogacy journey in California. A child, B, was born in January 2024 using…
LEGAL PARENTHOOD AND GENDER (UK Cases)
The claimant, TT (Freddy McConnell), was registered as female at birth but transitioned to live in the male gender,. In 2017, he received a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) confirming his legal gender as male. Shortly thereafter, TT underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) at a fertility clinic, became pregnant, and gave birth…
ETHICS AND SAFEGUARDING GUIDANCE (UK Cases)
The applicants, A and B, are a same-sex couple living in the UK who sought to start a family through an international surrogacy agency,. On the agency’s advice—intended to “avoid complications” because the surrogacy country (Country Y) did not permit same-sex arrangements—A applied as a single man,. The couple paid…
JUDICAL REASONING AND ANALYSIS (UK Cases)
The case originated from care proceedings brought by a local authority concerning five children (A, B, C, D, and E) following allegations of physical abuse by their mother. While the plans for the older children were largely settled, the future of the youngest, E, was the primary focus of the…
NON-DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS) (UK Cases)
The case concerned a child, Z, who was the biological son of the applicant father. Z was conceived using the father’s sperm and a donor egg, then carried to birth by an unmarried surrogate mother in the United States. In a previous hearing (Re Z (No 1)), the court had…
PROTRACTED DELAY (UK Cases)
The applicants, D (the biological father) and G (the commissioning mother), entered into gestational surrogacy agreements in California in 2006 and 2009,. Their children, A and B, were born in 2006 and 2009 respectively, and the family returned to the UK shortly after each birth using British passports,,. Under Californian…
INELIGIBILITY OF SINGLE APPLICANTS (UK Cases)
The case concerned a child, Z, born in 2014 in Minnesota, USA, via a surrogacy arrangement. The child was conceived using the applicant father’s sperm and an anonymous donor egg. Although a US court had issued a judgment establishing the father’s sole parentage and relieving the surrogate of all legal…
DISPENSING WITH CONSENT (UK Cases)
The applicants, AB and CD, are a British same-sex couple who entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India in 2011. Twins, E and F, were born in October 2011; AB was confirmed via DNA as the biological father. The family initially lived in Australia, where they obtained parenting orders, before…
STATUTORY TIME LIMITS (UK Cases)
A British married couple, B and P, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India using the father’s sperm and a donor egg. Their child, X, was born in December 2011. However, the parents were entirely unaware of the legal requirement to apply for a parental order under the Human Fertilisation…
DOMICILE (UK Cases)
The applicants were a same-sex couple: A, born in Poland, and B, born in the United States. After living together in Tennessee, where their union was not recognized, they moved to England in 2008 to live in a jurisdiction that offered legal protection and tolerance for same-sex families. They settled…
SCRUTINY OF COMMERCIAL AGENCY FEES (UK Cases)
The case concerned twin children born in California in July 2012 to two British men, MP and AH,,. The children were conceived via gestational surrogacy using an anonymous egg donor and the sperm of both applicants. The arrangements were facilitated by a California-based commercial organisation. While the surrogate mother received…
AVOIDANCE OF A "LEGAL VACUUM" (UK Cases)
The applicants, a husband and wife, had endured a 16-year journey to become parents, involving 15 unsuccessful IVF cycles across the UK, Italy, and Russia. Eventually, they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Moscow. The child, C, was conceived using the husband’s sperm and an anonymous Russian donor egg, and…
PROPORTIONALITY AND GOOD FAITH
The case involved a British couple, Mr. and Mrs. A, who, after years of unsuccessful fertility treatments in the UK and Europe, were advised to explore surrogacy in India due to a shortage of surrogates in the United Kingdom. They entered into a surrogacy arrangement with a clinic in New…
WELFARE PARAMOUNTCY
The applicants, a married couple domiciled in England, entered into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Illinois, USA. The agreement was entirely lawful in Illinois but would have been unlawful if conducted in the UK because it involved payments to the surrogate mother that exceeded “reasonable expenses”. Following the child’s birth,…
EXTRATERRITORIALITY
The applicants, a married couple domiciled in England, entered into a surrogacy agreement in Ukraine. The surrogate, a married Ukrainian woman, was implanted with embryos created from the male applicant’s sperm and an anonymous donor’s eggs. Under Ukrainian law, the applicants were the legal parents from birth; however, under the…
