## Facts

- Ms. Meadows consulted her general practitioner, Dr. Khan, seeking to determine if she was a carrier of the haemophilia gene, a hereditary condition.
- Dr. Khan negligently advised Ms. Meadows that she was not a carrier, relying on a test that only confirmed Ms. Meadows herself did not have haemophilia.
- Relying on the incorrect advice, Ms. Meadows gave birth to a son who had both haemophilia and autism, though autism was unrelated to the genetic risk at issue.
- Ms. Meadows sought compensation for the costs associated with both haemophilia and autism.
- The Court of Appeal, applying the SAAMCO principle, held Dr. Khan liable only for the costs related to haemophilia.
- The Supreme Court was asked to determine the correct scope of Dr. Khan’s liability for the losses suffered.

## Issues

1. Whether Dr. Khan’s duty of care extended to both haemophilia and autism-related losses, or only to losses stemming from haemophilia.
2. What framework should be applied to determine the proper scope of duty in professional negligence cases.
3. Whether existing principles, such as the advice/information distinction in SAAMCO, remain adequate or require revision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Dr. Khan was liable only for damages relating to her breach concerning haemophilia risk, not for losses associated with autism.
- The Court introduced a six-question framework for analyzing the scope of duty in negligence cases, emphasizing that liability is limited to harms within the purpose of the duty owed.
- The judgment clarified that professional liability requires a direct connection between the risk envisaged by the duty and the loss suffered.
- The majority judgment departed from rigid adherence to the SAAMCO distinction between "advice" and "information," focusing instead on the purpose and scope of the duty undertaken.

## Legal Principles

- The scope of duty in negligence is determined by examining the specific risks against which the defendant undertook to protect the claimant.
- The six-question framework provides a methodical approach to establishing whether harm is actionable, within the scope of duty, caused by breach, sufficiently connected to the subject-matter of the duty, and not excluded by remoteness or other legal principles.
- Liability in professional negligence is limited to losses falling within the specific purpose of the advice or service undertaken.
- Competing approaches (e.g., Lord Burrows’ seven-question model and Lord Leggatt’s focus on causation and counterfactual analysis) were acknowledged but not adopted as the primary framework.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Khan v Meadows established a structured six-question framework for identifying the scope of duty in negligence, holding that professionals are only liable for losses within the purpose of their assumed duty, and confirmed Dr. Khan’s liability was limited to losses associated with the haemophilia risk.


Khan v Meadows [2021] UKSC 21