Parkinson v St James & Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 (11 April 2001)

Parkinson v St James & Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 (11 April 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that, following McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages for the basic costs of maintaining an unwanted child are not recoverable after negligent sterilisation, but damages for the additional costs attributable to the child's significant disability are recoverable if the disability is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The court reasoned that logic and justice require compensation for the extra expenses associated with rearing a disabled child, but not for the ordinary costs of child maintenance.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 530
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Angela Parkinson; Defendant/appellant: St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (with Cross Appeal) From Queen's Bench Division, Preliminary Issue / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Both the appeal and the cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Damages for Wrongful Birth, Recovery of Child Rearing Costs, Duty of Care in Failed Sterilisation, Economic Loss in Negligence, Distributive Justice in Tort
Tort Law Medical Negligence Damages for Wrongful Birth Recovery of Child Rearing Costs Duty of Care in Failed Sterilisation Economic Loss in Negligence Distributive Justice in Tort

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 3 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Parkinson

Claimant/respondent

St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (with Cross Appeal) From Queen's Bench Division, Preliminary Issue / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for the costs of providing for a disabled child's special needs are recoverable following negligent sterilisation
  2. 2 Whether damages for the basic costs of maintenance of an unwanted child are recoverable
  3. 3 Scope of duty of care in failed sterilisation cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, following McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, damages for the basic costs of maintaining an unwanted child are not recoverable after negligent sterilisation, but damages for the additional costs attributable to the child's significant disability are recoverable if the disability is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The court reasoned that logic and justice require compensation for the extra expenses associated with rearing a disabled child, but not for the ordinary costs of child maintenance.

Court Disposition

Both the appeal and the cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages recoverable for the additional costs of the child's disability, but not for the basic costs of maintenance.