‘ A woman approaches a general medical practice for testing to establish whether she is a carrier of a hereditary disease. Tests which are inappropriate to answer that question are arranged. A general medical practitioner when informing her of the results of those tests negligently fails to advise her that she needs a genetic test to establish whether she is a carrier of the relevant gene. In fact, she is a carrier of the disease. Several years later, she gives birth to a baby boy who sadly not only suffers from the hereditary disease but also has an unrelated disability. Is the medical practitioner liable in negligence for the costs of bringing up the disabled child who has both conditions or only for those costs which are associated with the hereditary disease?’
Lord Reed, President, Lord Hodge, Deputy President, Lady Black, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows
[2021] UKSC 21, [2021] 3 WLR 147
Bailii, Bli Press Summary, Bli Issues and Facts
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
At First Instance – Meadows v Khan QBD 23-Nov-2017
Claim for the additional costs of raising the claimant’s son, A, who suffered from both haemophilia and autism. It is admitted that, but for the defendant’s negligence, A would not have been born because his mother would have discovered during her . .
At CA – Khan v Meadows CA 15-Feb-2019
Appeal from the judgment of Yip J who determined that the costs related to the autism of Adejuwon, the respondent’s son, following his birth may be properly recovered by her and assessed damages in the agreed sum of pounds 9,000,000. Adejuwon . .
Cited by:
Decided together – Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK Llp SC 18-Jun-2021
Was the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the break costs claimed by the Appellant fell outside the scope of the Respondent’s duty of care as professional accountants? . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.663388