0370 270 6000

Greenfield v Irwin and Others, Court of Appeal

8 February 2001
The issues

Pregnancy – Misdiagnosis – Claim for Loss of Earnings – Human Rights Act

The facts

The Claimant was pregnant. Nurse had negligently failed to discover the pregnancy. The Claimant gave birth to healthy child. She stated in evidence that she would have aborted the baby in order to continue in work. She claimed for loss of earnings.

The decision

A healthy child was an incalculable benefit. As a matter of law it could not be asserted that the losses would outweigh the benefits. Compensation must be held to fall outside the ambit of the duty of care. McFarlane v Tayside Health Board followed. No distinction in law arose in respect of negligent advice. Application to add as additional head of appeal a claim that the Judge’s decision violated the Claimant’s right to family life under Article 8 dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up