Nouri v Australian Capital Territory

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Nouri v Australian Capital Territory addressed a claim of negligence against the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiffs, the parents of a child born with significant disabilities, alleged that they were not adequately warned about the potential for their child to be born with disabilities, and that had they been warned, they would have elected for a termination of the pregnancy. The dispute centred on whether the Australian Capital Territory had a duty of care to the plaintiffs to warn them of the risk of their child being born with disabilities, and if so, whether that duty was breached, and whether such a breach caused the plaintiffs' loss.

The court was required to determine the scope and content of the duty of care owed by the Australian Capital Territory to the plaintiffs in relation to the risk of the child being born with disabilities. It also had to consider whether a termination would have been available to the plaintiffs had they been warned of the risk, and whether a termination would have occurred had they been given the option. The court had to assess the causation element of the plaintiffs' claim, determining whether the failure to warn directly caused the plaintiffs' loss.

The court found that the Australian Capital Territory did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs to warn them of the risk of their child being born with disabilities. The court held that the circumstances did not create a sufficient proximity between the parties to give rise to such a duty. The court also found that even if such a duty existed, it was not breached, as the plaintiffs had not presented evidence that a termination would have been available to them, or that they would have elected for a termination had it been available. As a result, the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed, and the court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs.