Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460

Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460

The defendant owed to the third plaintiff only a duty not to injure her, not a duty to prevent her conception; the negligence complained of did not cause the disabilities, which were genetic, and there is an impossibility in determining damage or assessing compensatory damages; additionally, public policy precludes recognition of such a claim. Accordingly, the third plaintiff does not have a maintainable cause of action in tort, contract, or under statute against the defendant.

Parties
1st Plaintiff: Robert Andrew Edwards; 2nd Plaintiff: Donna Rachelle Edwards; 3rd Plaintiff: Chelsea Grace Edwards by her tutor Robert Andrew Edwards; Defendant: Dr Neville Raymond Blomeley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Determination of Separate Questions Regarding 'wrongful Life' Claim
Outcome
Claim by third plaintiff dismissed; no cause of action maintainable.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Life, Duty of Care, Assessment of Damages, Causation, Public Policy
Negligence Medical Law Wrongful Life Duty of Care Assessment of Damages Causation Public Policy

Case Brief

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 6 Authorities cited 81 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Andrew Edwards

1st Plaintiff

Donna Rachelle Edwards

2nd Plaintiff

Chelsea Grace Edwards by her tutor Robert Andrew Edwards

3rd Plaintiff

Dr Neville Raymond Blomeley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Determination of Separate Questions Regarding 'wrongful Life' Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a child conceived and born following a failed vasectomy have a cause of action against the medical practitioner?
  2. 2 What categories of damages are available if such cause of action exists?
  3. 3 Was a duty of care owed to the child?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant owed to the third plaintiff only a duty not to injure her, not a duty to prevent her conception; the negligence complained of did not cause the disabilities, which were genetic, and there is an impossibility in determining damage or assessing compensatory damages; additionally, public policy precludes recognition of such a claim. Accordingly, the third plaintiff does not have a maintainable cause of action in tort, contract, or under statute against the defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim by third plaintiff dismissed; no cause of action maintainable.

Orders

  • Questions answered: (1) No; (2) Does not arise.
  • The matter to be relisted for submissions on costs and further orders.