This case note discusses the Singapore High Court case of UKM, in which an order was granted to a gay man to adopt his biological son conceived through a gestational surrogacy arrangement in the United States. In particular, the High Court's assessment of the welfare of the child and of public policy, in light of two factors—the prohibition of male homosexual acts in section 377A of the Penal Code and the de facto curtailment of domestic surrogacy by Singapore's restrictive rules relating to the use of assisted reproduction technology services—will be examined.

In a recent decision of an Assistant Registrar, it was held for the first time that Singapore courts do not have the power to order ‘pre-arbitral’ discovery. This note considers: (a) the extent to which this conclusion is open to challenge and is desirable; and (b) whether the present approach of characterising a discovery request as either ‘pre-arbitral’or ‘pre-action’is satisfactory. It is suggested that rather than relying on labels, the broad question as to when a court-ordered discovery may be granted in favour of a party who is bound by an arbitration agreement may be answered by adopting a more functional approach: (a) asking whether the causes of action in respect of which discovery is sought falls within the scope of the arbitration clause; (b) frankly recognising that even where the answer is in the affirmative, there may be limited occasions on which the court should grant discovery; and (c) holding that the courts have the inherent jurisdiction to grant discovery requests in these limited circumstances.