Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust: CA 14 Feb 2002

A disabled mother sought damages for the birth of a child after a negligently performed sterilisation.
Held: The rule in McFarlane against recovery of damages for the birth of a healthy child, did not prevent an award which was intended to reflect the particular damages attributable to the difficulties of providing care with her disabilities.


Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Lady Justice Hale


Times 20-Feb-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 88, [2003] QB 20




England and Wales


CitedMacFarlane and Another v Tayside Health Board HL 21-Oct-1999
Child born after vasectomy – Damages Limited
Despite a vasectomy, Mr MacFarlane fathered a child, and he and his wife sought damages for the cost of care and otherwise of the child. He appealed a rejection of his claim.
Held: The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the . .

Cited by:

CitedA v East Kent Community NHS Trust CA 17-Dec-2002
The claimant had become pregnant whilst placed in a mixed psychiatric ward. She claimed damages for their negligence. They responded that damages were not payable for a healthy child.
Held: The court was bound by Rees, and damages were not to . .
Appeal fromRees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust HL 16-Oct-2003
The claimant was disabled, and sought sterilisation because she feared the additional difficulties she would face as a mother. The sterilisation failed. She sought damages.
Held: The House having considered the issue in MacFarlane only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Personal Injury

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167610