Jonathan Yearworth & Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust

Jonathan Yearworth & Ors v North Bristol NHS Trust

For the purposes of claims in negligence and bailment, the men had ownership of the sperm they produced and stored with the Trust. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not eliminate such ownership for these purposes. The Trust is liable in both tort and bailment for the loss of the sperm, and the men are in law capable of recovering damages for psychiatric injury and/or mental distress foreseeably caused by the breach.

Parties
Appellants: Jonathan Yearworth and others; Respondent: North Bristol NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exeter County Court on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Bailment, Ownership of Human Tissue, Damages for Psychiatric Injury, Common Law Development
Tort Law Medical Law Property Law Negligence Bailment Ownership of Human Tissue Damages for Psychiatric Injury Common Law Development

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Yearworth and others

Appellants

North Bristol NHS Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exeter County Court on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damage to stored sperm constitutes personal injury to the men
  2. 2 Whether sperm is capable of being owned at common law
  3. 3 Whether the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 eliminates or restricts ownership rights in sperm

Ratio Decidendi

For the purposes of claims in negligence and bailment, the men had ownership of the sperm they produced and stored with the Trust. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 does not eliminate such ownership for these purposes. The Trust is liable in both tort and bailment for the loss of the sperm, and the men are in law capable of recovering damages for psychiatric injury and/or mental distress foreseeably caused by the breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the judge’s determination of the third and fourth issues
  • Substitute a determination that the sperm was the property of the men for the purposes of their claims in tort and bailment