Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15

Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15

The majority of the High Court held that a claim by a child for 'wrongful life' fails as life with disabilities is not actionable damage at law: it is not possible for a court to compare the value of existence with profound disabilities against non-existence, and therefore the necessary component of legally...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Alexia Harriton (by her tutor George Harriton); Respondent: Paul Richard Stephens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Wrongful Life, Wrongful Birth, Duty of Care, Damages for Personal Injury, Public Policy and Medical Law, Compensatory Damages, Sanctity of Life, Legal Cognisability of Injury
Tort Law Medical Negligence Wrongful Life Wrongful Birth Duty of Care Damages for Personal Injury Public Policy and Medical Law Compensatory Damages +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexia Harriton (by her tutor George Harriton)

Appellant

Paul Richard Stephens

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a child born with disabilities as a result of a doctor's failure to diagnose and warn of maternal rubella can recover damages from the doctor (wrongful life)
  2. 2 Whether a duty of care is owed by a medical practitioner to a child to diagnose and warn the mother of risks leading to the child’s non-existence
  3. 3 Whether actionable damage can be established by comparing a life with disabilities to non-existence

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the High Court held that a claim by a child for 'wrongful life' fails as life with disabilities is not actionable damage at law: it is not possible for a court to compare the value of existence with profound disabilities against non-existence, and therefore the necessary component of legally cognisable loss for negligence cannot be established. Further, the extension of duty of care to require a doctor to advise so as to deprive the foetus of life is not supported by principle or precedent, and is inconsistent with public policy and legal coherence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs