Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Blomeley

Edwards v Blomeley

Case [2002] NSWSC 460 12 June 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20425/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11-12 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 June 2002

PARTIES :

Robert Andrew Edwards (1st Plaintiff)
Donna Rachelle Edwards (2nd Plaintiff)
Chelsea Grace Edwards by her tutor Robert Andrew Edwards (3rd Plaintiff)
Dr Neville Raymond Blomeley (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : D. Hirsch (Plaintiffs)
P.R. Garling SC/S. Woods (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Maurice Blackburn Cashman (Plaintiffs)
Blake Dawson Waldron (Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - failed vasectomy - whether duty of care owed by medical practitioner performing procedure to child subsequently conceived - if so, content of duty - child born disabled - whether breach of duty to child - causation of disabilities - disabilities genetic and not iatrogenic. "WRONGFUL LIFE" claim - whether maintainable - impossibility of determining whether "damage" suffered - impossibility of assessing compensatory damages - public policy considerations

LEGISLATION CITED: Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 U.K.
Fair Trading Act, 1989 (Qld)
Health Care Liability Act, 2001
Limitation Act, 1969
Property Law Act, 1974 (Qld)

CASES CITED: Ahsan v Olsen 4 Conn L. Rptr. 282, 3 CSCR 55
Arndt v Smith [1994] 8 WWR 568 (BCSC)
Atlanta Obstetrics & Gynecology Group v Abelson 398 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1990)
Azzolino v Dingfelder 337 S.E.2d 528 (N.C. 1985)
Bannerman v Mills (1991) ATR 81-079
Beardsley v Wierdsma 650 P.2d 288 (Wyo. 1982)
Becker v Schwartz 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1986)
Blake v Cruz 698 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1984)
British Transport Commission v Gouley (1956) AC 185
Bruggeman v Schimke 718 P.2d 635 (Kan. 1986)
Bryan v Mahoney (1994-95) 182 CLR 609
Bundesgerichtshof (Sixth Civil Senate, 18 January 1983): see Institute of Global Law, German decisions, BGHZ 86, 240, JZ 1983)
Bundesvefassungsgerichts (First Division, 12 November 1997): see Institute of Global Law, German decisions, B Verf GE 96, 375)
Burton v Islington Health Authority; De Martell v Merton & Sutton Health Authority (1992) 3 All ER 833
CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Limited (1995-96) 38 NSWLR 47
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Cowe v Forum Group, Inc. 575 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 1991)
Curlender v Bio-Science Labs 106 Cal. App. 3d 811, 165 Cal.Rptr 477
De Martell v Merton & Sutton Health Authority (1992) 3 All ER 833
Donnelly v Candlewood Obstetric-Gynecological Associates, P.C. (6 Conn. L. Rptr. 532)
Dumer v St Michael's Hosp. 233 N.W.2d 372 (Wis. 1975)
Elliott v Brown 361 So. 2d 546 (Ala. 1978)
Ellis v Sherman 515 A 2d 1327 (Pa. 1986)
Emeh v Kensington & Chelsea & Westminster Health Authority (1985) QB 1012
Flanagan v Williams 623 N.E. 2d 185 (Ohio Ct App. 1993)
Frost v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police (1999) 2 AC 455
Garrison v Medical Ctr of Del. Inc. 581 A.2d 288 (Del. 1989)
Gleitman v Cosgrove (1967) 227 A 2d 689
Greco v United States 893 P.2d 345 (Nev. 1995)
Groom v Selby (2001) EWCA Civ 1522
Harbeson v Parke-Davis Inc. 656 P 2d 483
Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 460
Hayne v…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Edwards v Blomeley

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Blomeley [2002] NSWSC 460
Case: [2002] NSWSC 460
Decision Date: 12 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edwards v Blomeley, the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant, a medical practitioner, liable for negligence in performing a vasectomy procedure that subsequently resulted in the birth of a child with disabilities. The plaintiff argued that the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the child by failing to perform the procedure correctly. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the duty of care, causation, and the maintainability of a "wrongful life" claim.

The court considered whether a duty of care existed from the medical practitioner to the child, who was conceived after the failed procedure. It was necessary to establish the content of such a duty, if it existed. Furthermore, the court had to determine if there was a breach of duty and if such breach caused the disabilities of the child. The court also examined whether the disabilities were genetic or iatrogenic, as this would impact the causation analysis. Additionally, the court addressed the maintainability of a "wrongful life" claim, considering the impossibility of determining whether any damage was suffered and the difficulty in assessing compensatory damages. Public policy considerations were also examined in the context of this claim.

The High Court found that no duty of care was owed by the medical practitioner to the child, as the child could not have existed without the negligent act. The court held that there could be no actionable damage since the child could not have been born without the failed vasectomy. Consequently, a "wrongful life" claim was not maintainable due to the impossibility of determining whether the child suffered any damage and the difficulty in assessing compensatory damages. Public policy considerations supported this conclusion, as allowing such claims could lead to undesirable consequences.

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the defendant was not liable for negligence in the performance of the vasectomy procedure. The court's decision was based on the lack of a duty of care owed to the child, the inability to establish causation, and the maintainability of a "wrongful life" claim. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was ultimately unsuccessful, and no compensation was awarded.

Orders