- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-McFarlane v Tayside HB (2000)
Core Issue: Deals with the question of damages following an unwanted pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a healthy child after a failed vasectomy.
Facts:
Husband (C1) had a vasectomy.
Was advised his sperm count was negative and contraception was unnecessary.
Wife (C2) became pregnant.
Initial Court Decision (Lord Gill): Dismissed the claims, arguing pregnancy/childbirth isn't a personal injury and parenthood's benefits outweigh financial loss.
Inner House (Appeal): Reversed the decision, stating parenthood's benefits don't negate damages from an unwanted pregnancy.
House of Lords (Final Decision):
Dismissed appeal regarding damages for unwanted pregnancy and related costs.
Allowed appeal against the costs of raising the child.
Decision Reasoning (House of Lords):
Lord Steyn's "Underground Traveller" Analogy: Implies a common-sense intuition that tort law shouldn't provide remedies for the birth of a healthy child.
"Limited Damages Rule": A principle (see Stewart, 1995) used to deny the claim for child maintenance costs.
Reasons for Denying Child Maintenance Costs:
Pure Economic Loss: Child maintenance viewed as purely financial loss.
Unjust Enrichment: Compensating parents for child maintenance seen as unjustly enriching them.
Moral Intuition: Referenced the "Underground Traveller" as a representation of public sentiment.
Potential Scale of Damages: Concern over the potentially huge financial burden on the defendant.
Incoherence: Allowing wrongful birth claims (healthy child) while disallowing wrongful life claims (child born with disability) creates an inconsistent legal position.
Judicial Disquiet: General discomfort with awarding maintenance damages in these circumstances.
Key Concepts and Terminology:
Wrongful Pregnancy (Wrongful Conception): Parents tried to avoid both pregnancy and birth. McFarlane is a wrongful pregnancy case.
Wrongful Birth: Parents wanted a child, but would have terminated the pregnancy if they knew the child would be born with a disability. Arises from negligent denial of the opportunity to terminate.
Catch-all usage of "Wrongful Birth": Can sometimes include both wrongful pregnancy and wrongful birth cases.
Distinction between Wrongful Pregnancy and Wrongful Birth (Mason, 2002):
Wrongful Pregnancy: Unwanted pregnancy.
Wrongful Birth: Unwanted disabled child. Arguably, doctor proximity is greater in wrongful birth cases.
Key Takeaways:
An unwanted pregnancy is a legally recognized harm, and damages can be awarded for it.
However, the birth of a healthy child is not a legally recognized harm that warrants damages to cover the costs of raising the child.
The courts consider various factors (moral intuition, economic implications, legal consistency) when determining the scope of damages in cases related to unintended pregnancies.
Core Issue: Deals with the question of damages following an unwanted pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a healthy child after a failed vasectomy.
Facts:
Husband (C1) had a vasectomy.
Was advised his sperm count was negative and contraception was unnecessary.
Wife (C2) became pregnant.
Initial Court Decision (Lord Gill): Dismissed the claims, arguing pregnancy/childbirth isn't a personal injury and parenthood's benefits outweigh financial loss.
Inner House (Appeal): Reversed the decision, stating parenthood's benefits don't negate damages from an unwanted pregnancy.
House of Lords (Final Decision):
Dismissed appeal regarding damages for unwanted pregnancy and related costs.
Allowed appeal against the costs of raising the child.
Decision Reasoning (House of Lords):
Lord Steyn's "Underground Traveller" Analogy: Implies a common-sense intuition that tort law shouldn't provide remedies for the birth of a healthy child.
"Limited Damages Rule": A principle (see Stewart, 1995) used to deny the claim for child maintenance costs.
Reasons for Denying Child Maintenance Costs:
Pure Economic Loss: Child maintenance viewed as purely financial loss.
Unjust Enrichment: Compensating parents for child maintenance seen as unjustly enriching them.
Moral Intuition: Referenced the "Underground Traveller" as a representation of public sentiment.
Potential Scale of Damages: Concern over the potentially huge financial burden on the defendant.
Incoherence: Allowing wrongful birth claims (healthy child) while disallowing wrongful life claims (child born with disability) creates an inconsistent legal position.
Judicial Disquiet: General discomfort with awarding maintenance damages in these circumstances.
Key Concepts and Terminology:
Wrongful Pregnancy (Wrongful Conception): Parents tried to avoid both pregnancy and birth. McFarlane is a wrongful pregnancy case.
Wrongful Birth: Parents wanted a child, but would have terminated the pregnancy if they knew the child would be born with a disability. Arises from negligent denial of the opportunity to terminate.
Catch-all usage of "Wrongful Birth": Can sometimes include both wrongful pregnancy and wrongful birth cases.
Distinction between Wrongful Pregnancy and Wrongful Birth (Mason, 2002):
Wrongful Pregnancy: Unwanted pregnancy.
Wrongful Birth: Unwanted disabled child. Arguably, doctor proximity is greater in wrongful birth cases.
Key Takeaways:
An unwanted pregnancy is a legally recognized harm, and damages can be awarded for it.
However, the birth of a healthy child is not a legally recognized harm that warrants damages to cover the costs of raising the child.
The courts consider various factors (moral intuition, economic implications, legal consistency) when determining the scope of damages in cases related to unintended pregnancies.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law - Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust (2001) - Study Guide
Core Principle: In wrongful birth cases where a child is born with disabilities due to negligence, parents can recover the extra costs associated with raising the disabled child. This does not extend to the normal costs of raising a child.
Key Elements:
Type of Case: Wrongful birth (negligent sterilization leading to unwanted pregnancy).
Negligence: The sterilization procedure was performed negligently by the hospital.
Outcome: The claimant conceived and gave birth to a disabled child.
Court of Appeal Decision:
Recoverable Damages: Damages are recoverable for the additional costs of providing for the child's special needs and care attributable to the disabilities. Think: therapies, specialized equipment, etc.
Non-Recoverable Damages: Damages are not recoverable for the ordinary costs of raising a child. Think: food, clothing, normal education, etc. These are considered the costs associated with raising a child regardless of disability.
Significance:
This case establishes a clear distinction between the costs of raising a healthy child and the additional costs incurred due to a child's disability in wrongful birth claims.
It allows for recovery of costs directly related to the disability caused or not prevented by the negligence.
Related Case (See Comment):
Rand v East Dorset HA (2000): Similar wrongful birth case allowing recovery for costs arising from the disability. Useful for comparing and contrasting legal arguments.
Study Tips:
Focus on understanding the difference between "ordinary" costs and "disability-related" costs. Be able to provide examples of each.
Consider the policy arguments for and against allowing recovery in these types of cases. Why should/shouldn't parents be compensated for the costs of raising a disabled child in this scenario?
Compare Parkinson to Rand v East Dorset HA. What are the similarities and differences in the reasoning and outcome?
Core Principle: In wrongful birth cases where a child is born with disabilities due to negligence, parents can recover the extra costs associated with raising the disabled child. This does not extend to the normal costs of raising a child.
Key Elements:
Type of Case: Wrongful birth (negligent sterilization leading to unwanted pregnancy).
Negligence: The sterilization procedure was performed negligently by the hospital.
Outcome: The claimant conceived and gave birth to a disabled child.
Court of Appeal Decision:
Recoverable Damages: Damages are recoverable for the additional costs of providing for the child's special needs and care attributable to the disabilities. Think: therapies, specialized equipment, etc.
Non-Recoverable Damages: Damages are not recoverable for the ordinary costs of raising a child. Think: food, clothing, normal education, etc. These are considered the costs associated with raising a child regardless of disability.
Significance:
This case establishes a clear distinction between the costs of raising a healthy child and the additional costs incurred due to a child's disability in wrongful birth claims.
It allows for recovery of costs directly related to the disability caused or not prevented by the negligence.
Related Case (See Comment):
Rand v East Dorset HA (2000): Similar wrongful birth case allowing recovery for costs arising from the disability. Useful for comparing and contrasting legal arguments.
Study Tips:
Focus on understanding the difference between "ordinary" costs and "disability-related" costs. Be able to provide examples of each.
Consider the policy arguments for and against allowing recovery in these types of cases. Why should/shouldn't parents be compensated for the costs of raising a disabled child in this scenario?
Compare Parkinson to Rand v East Dorset HA. What are the similarities and differences in the reasoning and outcome?
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (2003) - Study Guide
Core Issue: Whether extra costs associated with parental disability, incurred as a result of negligent sterilization leading to the birth of a healthy child, are recoverable.
Facts:
A visually impaired woman underwent sterilization due to concerns about her ability to care for children.
The sterilization failed due to the negligence of the Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust.
She gave birth to a healthy child and claimed for the extra costs associated with raising the child, given her disability.
Legal Journey:
High Court: Ruled against recovery of additional costs.
Court of Appeal: Allowed the claimant to recover the extra costs attributable to her disability, emphasizing the principle of 'need' in distributive justice.
House of Lords: Allowed the Trust's appeal (4:3 majority).
Decision (House of Lords):
Overturned the Court of Appeal's decision.
The majority followed Lord Millett's reasoning from McFarlane v Tayside Health Board.
The real harm was to the claimant's reproductive autonomy, not the financial burden of raising a healthy child.
Awarded general damages of £15,000 not as compensation for maintenance costs, but in recognition of the infringement of reproductive autonomy.
Key Principles and Reasoning:
Reproductive Autonomy: The central focus of the House of Lords' decision. Negligence violated the mother's right to choose whether or not to have a child.
Distributive Justice:
Court of Appeal: Used "need" as a basis to extend recovery to disabled parents.
House of Lords (Minority): Supported the Court of Appeal, arguing distributive justice favored recovery in such cases.
House of Lords (Majority): Rejected distributive justice arguments related to the maintenance costs of a healthy child.
Significance and Implications:
Undermining Previous Case Law: The decision significantly limited the scope of recovery in "wrongful birth" cases involving healthy children, even when parental disability is a factor.
"Gloss" on McFarlane: The majority framed their decision as a refinement of McFarlane, focusing on the infringement of reproductive autonomy rather than the costs of raising a child.
Healthy Parents of Healthy Children: The decision implies that even healthy parents of healthy children can recover general damages for a failed sterilization based on the infringement of reproductive autonomy.
Doubt on Recovery for Disabled Children: By rejecting distributive justice arguments about need, the decision casts doubt on the recoverability of additional costs associated with raising a disabled child in future wrongful birth/wrongful life cases.
Core Issue: Whether extra costs associated with parental disability, incurred as a result of negligent sterilization leading to the birth of a healthy child, are recoverable.
Facts:
A visually impaired woman underwent sterilization due to concerns about her ability to care for children.
The sterilization failed due to the negligence of the Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust.
She gave birth to a healthy child and claimed for the extra costs associated with raising the child, given her disability.
Legal Journey:
High Court: Ruled against recovery of additional costs.
Court of Appeal: Allowed the claimant to recover the extra costs attributable to her disability, emphasizing the principle of 'need' in distributive justice.
House of Lords: Allowed the Trust's appeal (4:3 majority).
Decision (House of Lords):
Overturned the Court of Appeal's decision.
The majority followed Lord Millett's reasoning from McFarlane v Tayside Health Board.
The real harm was to the claimant's reproductive autonomy, not the financial burden of raising a healthy child.
Awarded general damages of £15,000 not as compensation for maintenance costs, but in recognition of the infringement of reproductive autonomy.
Key Principles and Reasoning:
Reproductive Autonomy: The central focus of the House of Lords' decision. Negligence violated the mother's right to choose whether or not to have a child.
Distributive Justice:
Court of Appeal: Used "need" as a basis to extend recovery to disabled parents.
House of Lords (Minority): Supported the Court of Appeal, arguing distributive justice favored recovery in such cases.
House of Lords (Majority): Rejected distributive justice arguments related to the maintenance costs of a healthy child.
Significance and Implications:
Undermining Previous Case Law: The decision significantly limited the scope of recovery in "wrongful birth" cases involving healthy children, even when parental disability is a factor.
"Gloss" on McFarlane: The majority framed their decision as a refinement of McFarlane, focusing on the infringement of reproductive autonomy rather than the costs of raising a child.
Healthy Parents of Healthy Children: The decision implies that even healthy parents of healthy children can recover general damages for a failed sterilization based on the infringement of reproductive autonomy.
Doubt on Recovery for Disabled Children: By rejecting distributive justice arguments about need, the decision casts doubt on the recoverability of additional costs associated with raising a disabled child in future wrongful birth/wrongful life cases.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Re Q (Parental Order) (1996)
I. Core Concept
Deals with parental orders in surrogacy arrangements where the commissioning couple provides gametes.
II. Facts of the Case
Commissioning Couple: Mr. and Mrs. B.
Surrogate: Miss A.
Arrangement: Mr. and Mrs. B paid Miss A £8,280 in expenses for carrying an embryo created using their gametes.
Initial Hesitation: After the birth, Miss A initially sought legal advice about keeping the child.
Eventual Agreement: Miss A ultimately agreed to the parental order.
III. Court Decision
The High Court granted the parental order to Mr. and Mrs. B.
Expenses Deemed Reasonable:
£5,000 compensation for Miss A's loss of earnings.
£3,280 covered pregnancy expenses and childcare for her other children (hospital visits, etc.).
IV. Legal Framework
Default Position (s.27 HFEA 1990): The surrogate is the legal mother.
s. 30 of the HFEA 1990 and Parental Orders: Outlines conditions for the court to grant a parental order, transferring legal parentage.
(a) Surrogacy Requirement: The child was carried by a surrogate mother after embryo/sperm and egg placement or artificial insemination.
(b) Genetic Link: The commissioning couple's gametes (husband, wife, or both) were used to create the embryo.
(c) Additional Conditions: Subsections (2)-(7) (not detailed here) must be satisfied.
V. Key Points & Implications
Retrospective Authorization: The court authorized the expenses after they were incurred. This follows precedent from Re Adoption Application (Payment for Adoption) (1987).
Genetic vs. Legal Fatherhood: Even though Mr. B was the genetic father, s. 28 of the HFEA 1990 states that he is not the legal father until the parental order is granted. Before the order, the surrogate's husband (if any) would be the legal father (even if not genetically related). """
I. Core Concept
Deals with parental orders in surrogacy arrangements where the commissioning couple provides gametes.
II. Facts of the Case
Commissioning Couple: Mr. and Mrs. B.
Surrogate: Miss A.
Arrangement: Mr. and Mrs. B paid Miss A £8,280 in expenses for carrying an embryo created using their gametes.
Initial Hesitation: After the birth, Miss A initially sought legal advice about keeping the child.
Eventual Agreement: Miss A ultimately agreed to the parental order.
III. Court Decision
The High Court granted the parental order to Mr. and Mrs. B.
Expenses Deemed Reasonable:
£5,000 compensation for Miss A's loss of earnings.
£3,280 covered pregnancy expenses and childcare for her other children (hospital visits, etc.).
IV. Legal Framework
Default Position (s.27 HFEA 1990): The surrogate is the legal mother.
s. 30 of the HFEA 1990 and Parental Orders: Outlines conditions for the court to grant a parental order, transferring legal parentage.
(a) Surrogacy Requirement: The child was carried by a surrogate mother after embryo/sperm and egg placement or artificial insemination.
(b) Genetic Link: The commissioning couple's gametes (husband, wife, or both) were used to create the embryo.
(c) Additional Conditions: Subsections (2)-(7) (not detailed here) must be satisfied.
V. Key Points & Implications
Retrospective Authorization: The court authorized the expenses after they were incurred. This follows precedent from Re Adoption Application (Payment for Adoption) (1987).
Genetic vs. Legal Fatherhood: Even though Mr. B was the genetic father, s. 28 of the HFEA 1990 states that he is not the legal father until the parental order is granted. Before the order, the surrogate's husband (if any) would be the legal father (even if not genetically related). """
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Re C (Surrogacy: Payments) (2002)
Core Issue: Deals with the court's power to authorize payments made to a surrogate mother exceeding reasonable expenses, specifically when seeking a parental order.
Facts:
A commissioning couple paid a surrogate mother £12,000.
The surrogate mother was receiving income support, raising concerns about the nature of the payment exceeding permissible expenses.
Legal Question: Can the court grant a parental order when unauthorized payments (i.e., payments exceeding reasonable expenses) have been made to the surrogate mother?
Decision:
Ordinarily, the court would not authorize such payments.
Normally, parental orders are not granted when unauthorized payments have occurred.
However, in this specific case, the court made an exception.
The court retrospectively authorized the payment and granted the parental order.
Rationale for Exception:
The paramount consideration was the child's best interests.
It was deemed to be in the child's best interests to be legally recognized as the child of the commissioning couple.
Key Takeaways:
Surrogacy payments are generally restricted to reasonable expenses.
Unauthorized payments can jeopardize the granting of a parental order.
The child's welfare is the overriding factor; the court has the discretion to authorize payments retrospectively to ensure the child's legal parentage reflects their actual care and upbringing.
This case highlights the tension between upholding the legal restrictions on commercial surrogacy and acting in the best interests of the child.
Points to Consider:
What constitutes "reasonable expenses" in surrogacy cases?
What evidence would be required to justify retrospectively authorizing a payment?
How does this case reflect the evolving legal landscape surrounding surrogacy? """
Core Issue: Deals with the court's power to authorize payments made to a surrogate mother exceeding reasonable expenses, specifically when seeking a parental order.
Facts:
A commissioning couple paid a surrogate mother £12,000.
The surrogate mother was receiving income support, raising concerns about the nature of the payment exceeding permissible expenses.
Legal Question: Can the court grant a parental order when unauthorized payments (i.e., payments exceeding reasonable expenses) have been made to the surrogate mother?
Decision:
Ordinarily, the court would not authorize such payments.
Normally, parental orders are not granted when unauthorized payments have occurred.
However, in this specific case, the court made an exception.
The court retrospectively authorized the payment and granted the parental order.
Rationale for Exception:
The paramount consideration was the child's best interests.
It was deemed to be in the child's best interests to be legally recognized as the child of the commissioning couple.
Key Takeaways:
Surrogacy payments are generally restricted to reasonable expenses.
Unauthorized payments can jeopardize the granting of a parental order.
The child's welfare is the overriding factor; the court has the discretion to authorize payments retrospectively to ensure the child's legal parentage reflects their actual care and upbringing.
This case highlights the tension between upholding the legal restrictions on commercial surrogacy and acting in the best interests of the child.
Points to Consider:
What constitutes "reasonable expenses" in surrogacy cases?
What evidence would be required to justify retrospectively authorizing a payment?
How does this case reflect the evolving legal landscape surrounding surrogacy? """
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-McKay v Essex AHA (1982) - Wrongful Life
Core Principle
Being born, even with severe disabilities, is not a legal harm for which a child can claim damages. This is a "wrongful life" claim.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff: A child born with severe congenital disabilities.
Cause: The mother contracted rubella (German measles) during pregnancy.
Negligence: Doctors (defendants) wrongly informed the mother she didn't have rubella, so she wasn't given the option of abortion.
Dispute: The defendants admitted liability for causing the disabilities.
Claim: The plaintiff also claimed damages for being born at all into a life of severe disability.
Court Decision (Court of Appeal)
Rejection of "Wrongful Life" Claim: The court rejected the argument that the child had a right to never be born.
Reasons for Rejection:
Sanctity of Life: A duty to prevent a birth goes against the principle of the sanctity of life.
Impossible Comparison: It's impossible for the courts to compare the value of a disabled life with non-existence. How can you determine if being born disabled is worse than not existing at all? This is a philosophical, not a legal, question.
Key Concepts & Implications
Wrongful Life vs. Wrongful Birth: This case deals specifically with "wrongful life," the child's perspective. Note: There is also "wrongful birth" (parents' perspective).
Sanctity of Life: This principle played a significant role in the court's decision.
Causation: The defendants were liable for the disabilities caused by their negligence. However, they were not liable for the child being born.
Damages: The court struggled with how to calculate damages for not being born.
Study Questions
What is the difference between a "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claim?
Why did the court emphasize the "sanctity of life" in this case?
What practical problems did the court identify in trying to assess damages for a "wrongful life" claim?
How does this case relate to the broader debate about abortion and disability?
Core Principle
Being born, even with severe disabilities, is not a legal harm for which a child can claim damages. This is a "wrongful life" claim.
Facts of the Case
Plaintiff: A child born with severe congenital disabilities.
Cause: The mother contracted rubella (German measles) during pregnancy.
Negligence: Doctors (defendants) wrongly informed the mother she didn't have rubella, so she wasn't given the option of abortion.
Dispute: The defendants admitted liability for causing the disabilities.
Claim: The plaintiff also claimed damages for being born at all into a life of severe disability.
Court Decision (Court of Appeal)
Rejection of "Wrongful Life" Claim: The court rejected the argument that the child had a right to never be born.
Reasons for Rejection:
Sanctity of Life: A duty to prevent a birth goes against the principle of the sanctity of life.
Impossible Comparison: It's impossible for the courts to compare the value of a disabled life with non-existence. How can you determine if being born disabled is worse than not existing at all? This is a philosophical, not a legal, question.
Key Concepts & Implications
Wrongful Life vs. Wrongful Birth: This case deals specifically with "wrongful life," the child's perspective. Note: There is also "wrongful birth" (parents' perspective).
Sanctity of Life: This principle played a significant role in the court's decision.
Causation: The defendants were liable for the disabilities caused by their negligence. However, they were not liable for the child being born.
Damages: The court struggled with how to calculate damages for not being born.
Study Questions
What is the difference between a "wrongful life" and "wrongful birth" claim?
Why did the court emphasize the "sanctity of life" in this case?
What practical problems did the court identify in trying to assess damages for a "wrongful life" claim?
How does this case relate to the broader debate about abortion and disability?
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R (Mellor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Key Principle: No Absolute Right to Assisted Reproduction
Key Principle: No Absolute Right to Assisted Reproduction
- The case establishes that there is no absolute right to access assisted reproductive services, particularly within the context of imprisonment.
- Parties: A prisoner (serving a life sentence, eligible for release at 35) and his wife (31).
- Request: The couple sought permission to undergo artificial insemination to start a family.
- Secretary of State's Refusal:
- No medical necessity.
- Concerns about the long-term stability of the marriage.
- Initial Legal Action: The applicant sought judicial review, which was initially refused.
- Appeal Dismissed: The Court of Appeal upheld the Secretary of State's decision.
- Reasoning:
- Purpose of Imprisonment: Incarceration inherently involves the deprivation of certain freedoms, including the freedom to found a family in the conventional sense.
- Article 12 of the HRA 1998 (Right to Marry and Found a Family): This right does not automatically grant prisoners access to assisted reproductive services.
- Exceptional Circumstances: The court acknowledged that there might be exceptions to this rule in extraordinary situations (though not present in this case).
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Sheffield HA ex p Seale (1994) - Assisted Reproductive Services & Rationality
Core Issue: Can access to assisted reproductive services (IVF in this case) be restricted, and under what conditions? This case explores the boundaries of a Health Authority's discretion in limiting access to treatment.
Facts:
Core Issue: Can access to assisted reproductive services (IVF in this case) be restricted, and under what conditions? This case explores the boundaries of a Health Authority's discretion in limiting access to treatment.
Facts:
- Applicant (Seale), 37 years old, was denied IVF treatment.
- Reason: Health Authority's policy imposed an age limit (35).
- Seale argued the decision was unlawful because:
- Breached the Secretary of State's duty under the National Health Service Act 1977 to provide services to meet reasonable medical needs.
- Was irrational as it didn't consider individual circumstances.
- She sought judicial review.
- Rejected Seale's application.
- Authority had discretion to refuse treatment because the Secretary of State hadn't limited provision or given specific directions.
- The decision wasn't irrational:
- While IVF could be effective beyond 35, the Authority argued its effectiveness decreased with age.
- Even though considering individual circumstances might be clinically sound, the decision to impose a blanket age limit wasn't so unreasonable to be considered irrational.
- Discretion of Health Authorities: This case affirms that Health Authorities have a degree of discretion in allocating resources and setting treatment criteria, provided they act rationally.
- Irrationality/Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The court applied the traditional "Wednesbury test" for irrationality.
- To be irrational, a decision must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. This is a very high bar to clear.
- Substantive vs. Procedural Grounds: The court suggests it's generally easier to challenge decisions on procedural grounds (e.g., improper process, failure to consult) than on substantive grounds (arguing the decision itself was wrong).
- Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA): The note suggests that now, post-HRA, a "proportionality" test might be applied. This test would be potentially easier to satisfy than Wednesbury unreasonableness. Proportionality asks whether the restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
- Reluctance to Challenge Clinical Discretion: Courts are typically hesitant to interfere with clinical judgments made by medical professionals or health authorities.
- Welfare Considerations (s 13(5) HFEA 1990): The commentary introduces another basis for refusing assisted reproductive services: welfare of the child.
- R v Ethical Committee of St Mary’s Hospital ex p Harriott (1988): Demonstrates this. Treatment was refused due to the woman's criminal record (prostitution) and unsuitability as a parent.
- What were the two grounds on which Seale challenged the Health Authority's decision?
- What is the "Wednesbury test" for irrationality? Why is it difficult to meet?
- What is "proportionality" and how does it differ from Wednesbury unreasonableness? Why might it be relevant in cases like this after the HRA 1998?
- Besides age, what other factors can be considered when deciding whether to grant access to assisted reproductive services? (Refer to the Harriott case).
- Why are courts generally reluctant to challenge clinical discretion?
- Published on
KembaraXtra A v C (1985) - Surrogacy Arrangement Enforceability
Key Points
Core Issue: Enforceability of surrogacy arrangements.
Ruling: Surrogacy arrangements are not legally enforceable in the UK.
Facts of the Case
Parties: Plaintiff (father) & C (surrogate mother).
Arrangement: Plaintiff's partner couldn't bear children, so they arranged for C to be a surrogate for £3,000.
Artificial Insemination: C was artificially inseminated with the plaintiff's sperm.
Change of Heart: C decided to keep the child after birth.
Initial Court Decision: Custody to C, access to the plaintiff.
Appeal: C appealed the access order.
Court of Appeal Decision
Appeal granted.
Initial order withdrawn.
Plaintiff denied access rights.
Significance & Context
Pre-1985 Act: Case heard in 1978, before the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
Statutory Backing: The Act (s 1A) provides statutory force to the non-enforceability of surrogacy arrangements.
Child's Best Interests: In custody disputes, the court prioritizes the child's welfare above the interests of the adults involved.
Related Cases & Principles
Re P (Minors) (1987):
Surrogate mother retained custody of twins.
Children were made wards of court.
Key Principle: Child's welfare is the "first and paramount consideration."
Factors: Bonding with the surrogate and satisfactory care provided were decisive.
W v H (Child Abduction: Surrogacy (No 2) (2002):
Commissioning parents from California.
Court ruled the case should be heard in California.
Reasoning: Californian court may have a different approach to child welfare.
C v S (1996) (Scottish Case):
Court may grant an order allowing the child to remain with the commissioning couple if it is in the child's best interest.
Factors considered: Where the child has been living, which parent(s) would provide the most stable home.
Overall Understanding
This case highlights the legal complexities of surrogacy.
UK law prioritizes the child's welfare above contractual agreements between adults.
Custody decisions are highly fact-specific and based on the individual circumstances of each case.
Courts consider the child's bonding, stability, and overall well-being when determining custody arrangements.
International elements can influence the jurisdiction and applicable laws.
Key Points
Core Issue: Enforceability of surrogacy arrangements.
Ruling: Surrogacy arrangements are not legally enforceable in the UK.
Facts of the Case
Parties: Plaintiff (father) & C (surrogate mother).
Arrangement: Plaintiff's partner couldn't bear children, so they arranged for C to be a surrogate for £3,000.
Artificial Insemination: C was artificially inseminated with the plaintiff's sperm.
Change of Heart: C decided to keep the child after birth.
Initial Court Decision: Custody to C, access to the plaintiff.
Appeal: C appealed the access order.
Court of Appeal Decision
Appeal granted.
Initial order withdrawn.
Plaintiff denied access rights.
Significance & Context
Pre-1985 Act: Case heard in 1978, before the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985.
Statutory Backing: The Act (s 1A) provides statutory force to the non-enforceability of surrogacy arrangements.
Child's Best Interests: In custody disputes, the court prioritizes the child's welfare above the interests of the adults involved.
Related Cases & Principles
Re P (Minors) (1987):
Surrogate mother retained custody of twins.
Children were made wards of court.
Key Principle: Child's welfare is the "first and paramount consideration."
Factors: Bonding with the surrogate and satisfactory care provided were decisive.
W v H (Child Abduction: Surrogacy (No 2) (2002):
Commissioning parents from California.
Court ruled the case should be heard in California.
Reasoning: Californian court may have a different approach to child welfare.
C v S (1996) (Scottish Case):
Court may grant an order allowing the child to remain with the commissioning couple if it is in the child's best interest.
Factors considered: Where the child has been living, which parent(s) would provide the most stable home.
Overall Understanding
This case highlights the legal complexities of surrogacy.
UK law prioritizes the child's welfare above contractual agreements between adults.
Custody decisions are highly fact-specific and based on the individual circumstances of each case.
Courts consider the child's bonding, stability, and overall well-being when determining custody arrangements.
International elements can influence the jurisdiction and applicable laws.
- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex p Blood (1997)
Core Principle
Core Principle
- Gametes (sperm and eggs) and embryos can only be stored and used with the donor's explicit consent.
- Mr. Blood's Situation: Sperm was extracted from Mr. Blood while he was in a coma shortly before his death and stored.
- Mrs. Blood's Request: After Mr. Blood's death, Mrs. Blood wanted to use his sperm to become pregnant.
- HFEA's Refusal: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) denied permission because Mr. Blood had not given written consent for his sperm to be stored and used after his death.
- Judicial Review: Mrs. Blood sought a judicial review of the HFEA's decision.
- Unlawful Storage: The Court of Appeal agreed that storing the sperm without written consent was unlawful.
- HFEA's Correct Decision: The HFEA was right to refuse permission for Mrs. Blood to use the sperm in the UK.
- Written Consent is Mandatory: Schedule 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 1990 requires written consent for gamete storage and usage.
- Treatment Abroad: The Court of Appeal considered whether Mrs. Blood could take the sperm to Belgium for treatment under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services). The case was returned to HFEA for reconsideration on this ground.
- Exportation Allowed: Despite the initial unlawful storage, the HFEA later permitted the sperm to be exported to Belgium under Section 24 of the HFEA 1990.
- Subsequent Legal Challenge: After the birth of her child(ren), Diane Blood challenged the HFEA 1990 law regarding the inability to name deceased fathers on birth certificates.
- HRA Incompatibility: Lawyers for the Health Secretary acknowledged that the HFEA 1990 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.
- Resulting Law Reform: This case led to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008, which amended the earlier legislation.
