Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

IVF Clinic successfully defends breach of contract compensation claim

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 298
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A man who sued an IVF clinic in London for breach of contract over a faked signature has lost his claim for compensation at the Court of Appeal.

Referred to in the case as ‘ARB’, the man sued the clinic IVF Hammersmith after his ex-partner, referred to as ‘R’ during the hearing, was impregnated with a frozen egg fertilised from his sperm in October 2010. The impregnation was a number of months after they had separated; ‘R’ had forged the the mans signature to enable her to continue with the IVF treatment, resulting in ARB bringing a claim for compensation to reflect the costs involved in raising the child.

ARB was successful in arguing that in failing to get his consent, the clinic was in breach of contract. However, senior judges upheld a previous ruling that he was not entitled to any financial compensation because of “public policy” that meant he could not be compensated for the cost of bringing up a healthy child.

The relationship between R and ARB had effectively ended in May 2010, resulting in R moving out of the home they were sharing. In October 2010, R presented a signed form to the clinic giving consent to proceed with the IVF treatment. A number of embryos had previously been frozen with both parties’ consent and on the basis of the document, an embryo was thawed and successfully implanted.


At the original High Court hearing in October last year, Judges heard how R had traced in pen over a pencil outline of ARB’s signature on the clinics consent form. The judge also said he was satisfied that ARB had no intention of having another child with R after they had separated. ARB argued he was entitled to financial compensation from the clinic because it had breached its contract with him by failing to obtain his “written or informed consent”. The judge concluded that the clinic was not negligent and ARB succeeded on all issues “save the issue of legal policy”, which meant he could not recover damages.

The Judge at the original ruling stated that

Although he has lost this case, my judgment must be seen as a complete personal and moral vindication for ARB. The same, of course, cannot be said for R.”

He granted permission to appeal and ARB brought a challenge against the ruling in October. His lawyers argued that the legal policy referred to by the judge in his ruling was not relevant to his case as it involved a contract.

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

 

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More

  • A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More

  • London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More