Supreme Court of Queensland
1: Re Cresswell [2018] QSC 142 | June 20, 2018
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Assisted Reproduction, In Vitro Fertilisation, Parens Patriae, Posthumous Sperm Donation, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges:  Brown J


Background: A Queensland woman applied to the Qld Supreme Court in Brisbane for the right to use her dead boyfriend’s sperm to have a baby. Ayla Cresswell’s partner Joshua Davies died suddenly in August 2016, and within hours the court granted permission for his sperm to be harvested. Ms Cresswell sought approval from the court to use the sperm, which is being held at an IVF clinic. 
 
  [Legal Issue]The court decided the sperm was capable of being deemed “property” and that Ms Cresswell was entitled to permanent possession of it. Ms McMillan said while the resulting child would not have the benefit of a father, there was support from a paternal and maternal grandfather.   [Court Orders]The applicant is entitled to possession and use of the spermatozoa to facilitate pregnancy and the Queensland Fertility Group (QFG) is to transfer directly the spermatozoa to Women’s Health Only (WHO) on the applicant’s direction.     


[  ] Download Decision

Supreme Court of NSW emblem
3: Jocelyn Edwards; Re the estate of the late Mark Edwards [2011] NSWSC 478 | May 23, 2011
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Posthumous Sperm Donation, Rights of Executors and Administrators, Sperm Donation, Succession
Judges:  R A Hulme J


Background: What right does a woman have to take sperm from the body of her deceased partner so that she may conceive a child? Ms Jocelyn Edwards seeks a declaration that she, as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards, is entitled to possession of sperm that was extracted from his body shortly after his death. Although there is no direct evidence, the clear and only inference is that she desires to have a child with the aid of assisted reproductive treatment. 
 
  [Legal Issue]Ms Edwards argued that, as the administrator of her late husband's estate in relation to the disposal of his body, she has a right to possession of any part thereof and no other party has a superior right. The Attorney General however argued that there is a right of property, but the right of an executor or administrator to possession of the deceased's body is limited to fulfilling the duty to ensure prompt and decent burial or cremation.   [Court Orders]The Court made the order that Ms Jocelyn Edwards is entitled to possession of the sperm recovered from the body of her late husband, Mr Mark Edwards.      


[  ] Download Decision

High Court of Australia
4: Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51; (2006) 231 ALR 277; (2006) 81 ALJR 254 | December 9, 2006
Court or Tribunal: 
Catchwords: Appeal, Paternity Fraud
Judges:  Crennan JGleeson JGummow CJHayne JHeydon JKirby J


Background: Ms Magill had made false representations in the course of the marriage concerning the paternity of children born during the marriage. DNA testing after the marriage ended revealed two children of the marriage were not the biological children of the Mr Magill.  
 
  [Legal Issue]At issue in these proceedings was the notion of paternity fraud, and whether the tort of deceit can be applied in a marital context in relation to false representations of paternity. Once finding out that he was not the father of his two youngest children, and his ex-wife aware that he was likely not the father, he sued, launching a case for deceit in the Victorian County Court, claiming damages for personal injury in the form of anxiety and depression resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations. He also claimed financial loss, including loss of earning capacity by reason of his psychiatric problems and expenditure on the children under the mistaken belief he was their father, plus exemplary damages. The County Court awarded him $70,000 from his ex-wife, including $30,000 for gen   [Court Orders]The judges unanimously ruled that the case for paternity fraud brought by Liam Neale Magill failed. Three judges held that no action for deceit could lie in representations about paternity made between spouses. Three other judges held that there could be circumstances in which such an action might succeed but they were exceptional and did not cover Mr Magill's situation. However, the court also rejected an argument put by Mr Magill's former wife Meredith that the Family Law Act ruled ou     


[  ] Download Decision