Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust, United Kingdom House of Lords, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

LORD HUTTON
LORD MILLETT
LORD SCOTT
LORD STEYN
LORD BINGHAM
LORD HOPE

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, who is severely visually impaired, asked the Defendant (an NHS Trust) to perform a sterilisation procedure because she believed her disability would make parenting extremely difficult. The operation was performed negligently, resulting in the Plaintiff conceiving and giving birth to a healthy child. She sued in negligence, initially claiming the full costs of raising the child or, alternatively, the additional costs attributable to her disability.

A deputy High Court judge, relying on McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, held that no child-rearing costs were recoverable. The Court of Appeal (majority) reversed this in part, allowing recovery of the “extra” costs linked to the Plaintiff’s disability. The Defendant appealed to the House of Lords; the Plaintiff cross-appealed, asking the House to reconsider McFarlane and award the full costs of upbringing.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the House of Lords should depart from its unanimous decision in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, which bars recovery of the ordinary costs of bringing up a healthy child born after negligent sterilisation advice or treatment.
If McFarlane stands, whether a disabled parent may nevertheless recover the additional costs of raising a healthy child that are attributable to the parent’s disability.
Whether a conventional (non-compensatory) lump-sum award should be made to mark the legal wrong suffered when parents lose the ability to limit the size of their family.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

McFarlane was wrongly decided and should be overruled; orthodox tort principles require the negligent doctor to bear all foreseeable financial consequences, including child-rearing costs.
Alternatively, even if McFarlane is retained, it should not apply where the parent’s disability makes child-rearing more expensive; those “extra” costs are distinct and recoverable.

Defendant's Arguments

McFarlane remains binding; its policy rationale (the incalculability of balancing the burdens and benefits of parenthood) applies irrespective of parental disability.
Creating an exception for disabled parents would produce arbitrary and unprincipled distinctions and encourage claimants to emphasise disability to obtain damages.
If any award is appropriate, it should be confined to pregnancy-related pain, suffering and loss, not ongoing child-rearing expenses.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59	Parents of a healthy child cannot recover child-rearing costs after negligent sterilisation.	Affirmed as binding; only a modest “conventional” award is now added.
Parkinson v St James & Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002] QB 266	Additional costs of a disabled child are recoverable.	Considered but not extended to cover a disabled parent.
Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38	Australian authority allowing full upbringing costs.	Recognised but not followed; illustrates international division of opinion.
Emeh v Kensington & Chelsea AHA [1985] QB 1012	Earlier English support for full cost recovery.	Not followed; superseded by McFarlane.
Thake v Maurice [1986] QB 644	Wrongful conception precedents.	Cited as part of pre-McFarlane line of authority.
Benarr v Kettering HA [1988] 138 NLJ 179	Wrongful conception precedents.	Same as above.
Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 QB 373	Judicial role in developing policy.	Quoted to justify policy-based resolution.
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410	Limits of duty and policy considerations.	Underlying policy analysis referenced.
Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways (Nos 4 & 5) [2002] 2 AC 883	Fairness and reasonableness limit recoverability.	Cited to stress the non-automatic nature of damages assessment.
Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605	Scope of duty of care.	Used in analysing whether upbringing costs fall within duty.
Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398	Pure economic loss and duty scope.	Relied upon by some judges.
Ward v James [1966] 1 QB 273	Conventional damages assessment.	Discussed when debating a fixed lump-sum award.
Wright v British Railways Board [1983] 2 AC 773	Conventional damages and comparability.	Same context as above.
Fitzleet Estates v Cherry [1977] 1 WLR 1345	Reluctance to depart from prior House decisions.	Invoked to retain McFarlane.
R v Knuller [1973] AC 435	Limits on overruling prior authority.	Same as above.
Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) [1976] AC 443	Example of exceptional overruling.	Distinguished; no such exceptional circumstances here.
Clark v Novacold Ltd [1999] ICR 951	Approach to disability in discrimination law.	Cited as societal backdrop.
Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302	Definition of disability under statute.	Referenced in discussion of disability concepts.
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25	Basic compensatory principle.	Highlighted before explaining why an exception applies.
Banque Bruxelles Lambert v Eagle Star [1997] AC 191	Scope-of-duty reasoning.	Used to frame causation vs. duty debate.
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341	Remoteness in contract; analogy.	Policy comparison only.
Lim Poh Choo v Camden AHA [1980] AC 174	Conventional damages where precise valuation impossible.	Cited when debating a fixed sum award.
Shaher v British Aerospace Flying College Ltd 2003 SLT 791	Levels of bereavement awards.	Discussed to gauge quantum of conventional sum.
White v Jones [1995] 2 AC 207	Duty owed despite absence of contract.	Analogy for NHS context.
Farley v Skinner [2002] 2 AC 732	Damages for loss of amenity/expectation.	Referenced in support of a conventional award.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

All members of the House rejected any departure from McFarlane. They emphasised:

Stare decisis: No “special circumstances” justified overruling a unanimous, recent decision. Stability in the law outweighed academic or comparative criticisms.
Policy foundations of McFarlane remain valid: Treating a healthy child solely as a compensable financial burden is “morally repugnant”; balancing intangible benefits of parenthood against costs is impossible.
No principled basis for a disability-only exception: Granting damages when the parent (rather than the child) is disabled would create anomalies, encourage claimants to overstate disability, and blur the clear rule established in McFarlane.
Conventional award: A majority (Judge Bingham, Judge Nicholls, Judge Millett, Judge Scott) accepted that denying all relief beyond pregnancy-related damages fails to mark the legal wrong. They adopted Judge Millett’s earlier suggestion of a fixed, non-compensatory sum—set at £15,000—to acknowledge the infringement of the Plaintiff’s autonomy without treating the child as a quantifiable loss.
Application to facts: The Plaintiff may not recover ongoing child-rearing costs—ordinary or disability-related—because they fall within the prohibition in McFarlane. She is, however, entitled to the £15,000 conventional sum in addition to any pregnancy-related damages previously awarded.

Holding and Implications

Appeal ALLOWED. The orders of the Court of Appeal and the High Court are set aside. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff in the conventional sum of £15,000; no child-rearing costs are recoverable.

Implications: The House re-affirms McFarlane as controlling authority but adds a new, uniform “conventional award” to recognise the loss of reproductive autonomy. This modest payment does not open the door to calculating upbringing costs and applies irrespective of parental or child disability. While the decision preserves fiscal limits on healthcare defendants, it slightly expands remedies available to claimants in wrongful-pregnancy cases, without creating precedent for large compensatory awards.