ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd

ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd

The claimant's signature on the consent form was forged by R; the clinic was in breach of an express strict contractual obligation not to thaw and replace an embryo without the claimant's written consent. However, public/legal policy precludes recovery of damages for the cost of raising a healthy but unwanted child, even where the obligation is strict. Thus, the claim fails on grounds of legal policy.

Parties
Claimant: ARB; Defendant: IVF Hammersmith Ltd; Third Party: R
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/tort) / High Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed on grounds of public/legal policy; judgment for the defendant clinic.
Legal Topics
Informed Consent, IVF and Fertility Treatment, Forgery, Damages for Unwanted Birth, Public Policy in Damages, Remoteness of Damage
Contract Law Medical Law Tort Law Informed Consent IVF and Fertility Treatment Forgery Damages for Unwanted Birth Public Policy in Damages +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ARB

Claimant

IVF Hammersmith Ltd

Defendant

R

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/tort) / High Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant clinic was in breach of contract for failing to obtain the claimant's written consent before thawing and implanting an embryo
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's signature was forged on the consent form
  3. 3 Whether the clinic owed a strict or reasonable care obligation to obtain consent

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's signature on the consent form was forged by R; the clinic was in breach of an express strict contractual obligation not to thaw and replace an embryo without the claimant's written consent. However, public/legal policy precludes recovery of damages for the cost of raising a healthy but unwanted child, even where the obligation is strict. Thus, the claim fails on grounds of legal policy.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed on grounds of public/legal policy; judgment for the defendant clinic.

Orders

  • Judgment for the defendant on the claim; judgment for the third party (R) on the Part 20 claim; quantum not assessed; parties to submit written arguments on costs and permission to appeal.