Khan v MNX

Khan v MNX

The appellant's duty was limited to advising and investigating in relation to haemophilia, not all risks of pregnancy. The costs associated with autism did not fall within the scope of the appellant's duty, as the risk of autism was not increased by the negligent advice. The judge below erred by applying a 'but for' causation test rather than the SAAMCO scope of duty test. The appeal is allowed; damages are limited to losses associated with haemophilia only.

Parties
Appellant: Dr Hafshah Khan; Respondent: MNX
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Scope of Duty, Wrongful Birth, Damages, Causation
Medical Negligence Tort Law Scope of Duty Wrongful Birth Damages Causation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Hafshah Khan

Appellant

MNX

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's liability for damages extends to the costs associated with the child's autism, in addition to haemophilia, following negligent advice regarding genetic testing

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's duty was limited to advising and investigating in relation to haemophilia, not all risks of pregnancy. The costs associated with autism did not fall within the scope of the appellant's duty, as the risk of autism was not increased by the negligent advice. The judge below erred by applying a 'but for' causation test rather than the SAAMCO scope of duty test. The appeal is allowed; damages are limited to losses associated with haemophilia only.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Damages limited to losses associated with haemophilia only; not recoverable for autism.