ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) (06 October 2017)

ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) (06 October 2017)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that R forged ARB's signature on the Consent to Thaw form, meaning ARB did not give effective consent to the embryo transfer. However, the clinic was not found liable in contract or tort because it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the forgery and followed the protocols then in place. Further, public policy precludes recovery of damages for the cost of raising a healthy child, even if conception occurred without valid paternal consent.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2438 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: ARB; Defendant: IVF Hammersmith Ltd; Third Party: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Consent in IVF Treatment, Forgery of Consent, Parental Responsibility, Damages for Wrongful Birth, Clinic Liability, Public Policy in Reproductive Medicine
Medical Law Contract Law Tort Law Consent in IVF Treatment Forgery of Consent Parental Responsibility Damages for Wrongful Birth Clinic Liability +1 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARB

Claimant

IVF Hammersmith Ltd

Defendant

R

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether R forged ARB's signature on the Consent to Thaw form
  2. 2 Whether the clinic breached its contractual or statutory duties regarding consent
  3. 3 Whether ARB is entitled to damages for the cost of raising a child born following the alleged lack of consent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that R forged ARB's signature on the Consent to Thaw form, meaning ARB did not give effective consent to the embryo transfer. However, the clinic was not found liable in contract or tort because it had no actual or constructive knowledge of the forgery and followed the protocols then in place. Further, public policy precludes recovery of damages for the cost of raising a healthy child, even if conception occurred without valid paternal consent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim by ARB against IVF Hammersmith Ltd dismissed
  • No order for damages for cost of raising child