Khan v Meadows (Rev2) [2019] EWCA Civ 152 (15 February 2019)
The appellant's duty was limited to advising and investigating haemophilia risk; liability does not extend to losses associated with autism, as the scope of duty did not encompass all risks of pregnancy. The judge erred by applying 'but for' causation rather than the scope of duty test. The appeal is allowed and damages are limited to losses associated with haemophilia only.
- Citation
- [2019] EWCA Civ 152
- Parties
- Appellant: Dr Hafshah Khan; Respondent: Ms Omodele Meadows
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Queen's Bench Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Scope of Duty, Wrongful Birth, Causation, Damages
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dr Hafshah Khan
Appellant
Ms Omodele Meadows
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Queen's Bench Division / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's liability extends to additional losses associated with both haemophilia and autism or is limited to haemophilia only
- 2 Application of the scope of duty test in medical negligence cases
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's duty was limited to advising and investigating haemophilia risk; liability does not extend to losses associated with autism, as the scope of duty did not encompass all risks of pregnancy. The judge erred by applying 'but for' causation rather than the scope of duty test. The appeal is allowed and damages are limited to losses associated with haemophilia only.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Damages limited to losses associated with haemophilia only
- No recovery for additional losses associated with autism
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment