Farraj & Anor v King's Healthcare NHS Trust & Anor

Farraj & Anor v King's Healthcare NHS Trust & Anor

CSL owed a duty of care to the Claimants based on foreseeability, proximity, and fairness. The scope of duty includes reasonable skill and care in culturing and communication of material information. The claim against CSL is statute-barred, but it is equitable to allow the action to proceed under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Hanan Basem Farraj; Claimant: Mr Basem M. Farraj; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: King's Healthcare NHS Trust; Part 20 Defendant: Cytogenetic DNA Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Application to Join Party
Outcome
Claimants' application to join CSL as Second Defendant granted; CSL found to owe a duty of care to Claimants.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Wrongful Birth, Limitation Period, Contribution, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Medical Negligence Limitation Duty of Care Wrongful Birth Limitation Period Contribution Assumption of Responsibility

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Hanan Basem Farraj

Claimant

Mr Basem M. Farraj

Claimant

King's Healthcare NHS Trust

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Cytogenetic DNA Services Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Issue and Application to Join Party

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cytogenetic DNA Services Limited owed a duty of care to the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether the claim against CSL is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether it is equitable to allow the action against CSL to proceed despite limitation

Ratio Decidendi

CSL owed a duty of care to the Claimants based on foreseeability, proximity, and fairness. The scope of duty includes reasonable skill and care in culturing and communication of material information. The claim against CSL is statute-barred, but it is equitable to allow the action to proceed under s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to join CSL as Second Defendant granted; CSL found to owe a duty of care to Claimants.

Orders

  • CSL joined as Second Defendant.
  • Action against CSL allowed to proceed despite limitation.