Meadows v Khan

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Khan v Meadows, a case concerning the scope of a medical practitioner's duty of care in clinical negligence claims. The claimant, Meadows, consulted a general medical practitioner, Dr Khan, to determine if she was a carrier of the haemophilia gene. Dr Khan negligently advised Meadows that she was not a carrier, leading to the birth of a son with both haemophilia and autism. Meadows sought compensation for the additional costs of raising her son, including those associated with his autism.

The legal issues centred on whether the approach to determining the scope of a defendant's duty of care, as outlined in South Australia Asset Management Corpn v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO), should apply to clinical negligence claims. The court concluded that the SAAMCO principle was applicable and that Dr Khan's duty was limited to advising Meadows about whether she was a carrier of the haemophilia gene. Consequently, Dr Khan was only liable for the costs associated with her son's haemophilia, not his autism.

The court structured its analysis around six questions: (1) Is the harm actionable in negligence? (2) What risks did the defendant owe a duty of care to protect the claimant against? (3) Did the defendant breach their duty? (4) Is the loss a consequence of the defendant's act or omission? (5) Is there a sufficient nexus between the loss and the defendant's duty? (6) Is the loss recoverable under legal filters such as remoteness or mitigation? The court concluded that the autism-related costs were outside the scope of Dr Khan's duty, aligning with the SAAMCO principle.

The Supreme Court's judgment emphasised that the scope of a professional's duty is determined by the purpose of the advice or information provided. In this case, Dr Khan's duty was limited to advising on the haemophilia gene, and thus, she was not liable for the unrelated autism-related costs. The court's decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between related and unrelated risks in clinical negligence claims, ensuring that liability is imposed fairly and reasonably.