Meadows v Khan
A doctor who negligently told a woman that she was not a carrier of the haemophilia gene was not liable for the costs of her son's unrelated autism, because they were outside the scope of her duty.
Facts
Ms Meadows wanted to know whether she was a carrier of the haemophilia gene, before having children. Her doctor arranged the wrong blood tests, and negligently told her that the results were normal. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son who had haemophilia, and who was also diagnosed with autism, which was unrelated. She would have had a test during the pregnancy and terminated it if she had known she was a carrier. She claimed the extra costs of bringing up a child with both conditions.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the doctor was liable only for the costs associated with haemophilia, not autism. Lord Hodge and Lord Sales said that the scope of the duty depended on its purpose, which was to enable Ms Meadows to make an informed decision about the risk of having a child with haemophilia. The risk that the child might have autism was unrelated to the purpose of the advice, so the costs associated with autism were not within the scope of the duty, even though the child would not have been born but for the negligence. The case applied the approach in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton.
Related cases on pure economic loss and negligent misstatement
- Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
- Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
- Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520
- Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021] UKSC 20, [2022] AC 783
- Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] 1 AC 398
- Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
