{"title":"Damages for Wrongful Fertilisation: Reliance on Policy Considerations","authors":"Chen Meng. Lam","doi":"10.21153/dlr2019vol24no1art874","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In what was described as ‘one of the most difficult cases’ that had come before it, the Singapore Court of Appeal in ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd (‘ACB’) recognised, for the first time, the loss of genetic affinity as an independent head of loss that would allow a plaintiff to recover damages in a claim for wrongful fertilisation. In ACB, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for upkeep costs of raising the child from birth to maturity, and instead identified the loss of genetic affinity as the real harm for which damages should be awarded to compensate for the mistaken use of sperm from an unknown third party. An interesting aspect of ACB was how the Court of Appeal grappled with policy considerations as the basis for its decision. The influence of policy considerations in ACB raises the question of whether the decision runs contrary to the long-standing view that there is little room for public policy reasoning in private law adjudication. In this article, the author argues that the Court of Appeal’s decision in ACB was correctly made as it rightly embraced policy considerations in rejecting the upkeep claim and focused on the value of biological relationships in recognising an interest in genetic affinity.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deakin Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2019vol24no1art874","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In what was described as ‘one of the most difficult cases’ that had come before it, the Singapore Court of Appeal in ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd (‘ACB’) recognised, for the first time, the loss of genetic affinity as an independent head of loss that would allow a plaintiff to recover damages in a claim for wrongful fertilisation. In ACB, the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for upkeep costs of raising the child from birth to maturity, and instead identified the loss of genetic affinity as the real harm for which damages should be awarded to compensate for the mistaken use of sperm from an unknown third party. An interesting aspect of ACB was how the Court of Appeal grappled with policy considerations as the basis for its decision. The influence of policy considerations in ACB raises the question of whether the decision runs contrary to the long-standing view that there is little room for public policy reasoning in private law adjudication. In this article, the author argues that the Court of Appeal’s decision in ACB was correctly made as it rightly embraced policy considerations in rejecting the upkeep claim and focused on the value of biological relationships in recognising an interest in genetic affinity.
在被称为“最困难的案件之一”的案件中,新加坡上诉法院在ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd(“ACB”)一案中首次承认遗传亲和力的丧失是一个独立的损失,这将使原告能够在错误受精的索赔中收回损害赔偿。在ACB中,上诉法院驳回了抚养孩子从出生到成熟的抚养费索赔,而是将基因亲和力的丧失确定为真正的伤害,应赔偿因错误使用未知第三方精子而造成的损失。ACB的一个有趣方面是,上诉法院如何处理作为其裁决基础的政策考虑。ACB中政策考虑的影响提出了一个问题,即该决定是否违背了长期以来的观点,即私法裁决中几乎没有公共政策推理的空间。在这篇文章中,作者认为,上诉法院在ACB中的裁决是正确的,因为它在驳回抚养费索赔时正确地考虑了政策因素,并将重点放在了生物关系在承认基因亲和力方面的价值上。