0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust

25 April 2001
The issues

Negligently Performed Sterilisation – Recovery Of Damages For The Cost Of Providing For The Upbringing Of The Resultant Child

The facts

In 1993 the mother had undergone sterilisation. The procedure had been performed negligently and was unsuccessful. 10 months later she conceived her fifth child. She was warned that it might be born with a disability. She chose not to have a termination. The child was born with severe communication and behavioural problems. It was admitted that the child could not be treated for the purposes of the case as “a healthy” child.

The decision

Brooke LJ considered the case law notably McFarlane v Tayside Health Board H.L. in which the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for economic loss being the costs of bringing up a healthy child conceived after the father’s failed vasectomy.

1. The Court had been referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida, Fassoulas v Ramey which allowed an exception to the rule in McFarlane on the basis that the costs of “special upbringing%u2026%u2026 associated with a deformed child%u2026.” were recoverable. In this case the birth of a child with congenital abnormalities was a foreseeable consequence of the surgeon’s negligence.

2. There was a limited group of people who might be affected by the negligence namely the Claimant and her husband.

3. There was no difficulty in principle in accepting the proposition that the surgeon had assumed responsibility for the foreseeable economic consequences of performing his services negligently.

The purpose of the operation had been to prevent further children being born including children with congenital abnormalities and the surgeon’s duty of care was strictly related to that purpose.

Between Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster and McFarlane parents had been in a position of being able to obtain the special upbringing costs associated with rearing a child with a serious disability in these circumstances.

4. An award of compensation limited to special upbringing costs associated with rearing a child with a serious disability was fair and reasonable within Caparo.

If principals of distributive as opposed to corrective justice were employed, most people would regard it as fair and reasonable that the Claimant should be compensated in respect of the extra expenses involved.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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