Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Tr...

Facts

• The claimant underwent a sterilization procedure to prevent further pregnancies due to financial and personal constraints.
• The sterilization was negligently performed by the defendant NHS Trust.
• As a result, the claimant gave birth to a child with significant disabilities.
• The claimant sought damages for the additional costs of raising her disabled child, arguing these expenses were directly caused by the defendant’s negligence.
• This claim followed the legal backdrop established by McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, which denied recovery of the ordinary costs of raising a healthy child after a failed sterilization.

Issues

1. Whether damages for the additional costs of rearing a disabled child, resulting from a negligently performed sterilization procedure, are recoverable.
2. Whether ordinary versus extraordinary (disability-related) childrearing costs should be distinguished for recovery in wrongful birth claims.
3. Whether the alleged disability and its expenses were a foreseeable and direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that the ordinary costs of raising a child are not recoverable, reaffirming the principle from McFarlane.
• An exception was recognized, allowing recovery for the additional costs associated with the child’s disability where these were a foreseeable and direct consequence of negligence.
• The court emphasized that damages can be awarded only for those extra expenses attributable specifically to the child’s disability, not for general childrearing costs.
• The claimant was entitled to recover the financial burden imposed by the special needs arising from the child’s disabilities.

Legal Principles

• The ordinary costs of raising a healthy child following a failed sterilization are not recoverable (McFarlane principle).
• An exception allows for the recovery of additional expenses arising from a child’s disability that is directly and foreseeably caused by the defendant’s negligence.
• The foreseeability and causal link between the negligent act and the extra financial burden are critical for recovery.
• Policy considerations, including fairness to claimants and concerns about potential broad liability, are relevant but do not outweigh the need to fairly compensate parents for disability-related additional costs only.
• Claims must be supported by medical and financial evidence detailing the nature and extent of the child’s disability and related expenses.

Conclusion

Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 530 represents a significant development in wrongful birth claims, confirming that while the ordinary costs of raising a child after negligent sterilization remain non-recoverable, parents may recover damages for the additional costs specifically resulting from a child’s disability when these expenses are foreseeable and causally linked to the defendant’s breach.