Whitehead v Searle and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Laws,Lord Justice Rix,Lord Justice Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 04 April 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 1093,[2008] EWCA Civ 285 |
| Date | 04 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2007/1770,HQ05X00457 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1093
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Laws
Lord Justice Rix and
Lord Justice Rimer
Case No: A2/2007/1770
A2/2007/1788
Mr G Bebb QC & Mr J Counsell (instructed by Robin Simon LLP) appeared on behalf of the first Appellant. Mr J Stuart-Smith QC (instructed by Messrs Donns LLP) appeared on behalf of the second Appellant
Mr B Livesey QC (instructed by Messrs Davies Arnold Cooper) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
(As Approved)
This is a difficult, tragic and indeed important case in which we are dealing with an application for permission to cross-appeal in circumstances which I must briefly explain. Because of constraints on the court's time today I shall have to be relatively short.
On 10 August 1986 a child called David was born with spina bifida. His mother was a lady to whom I may refer as PM. His father is EW. They were not married. On 28 November 1986 PM consulted a firm of solicitors (I shall refer to them as “the solicitors”) who in due course were to become the second defendants in the present action. She consulted them in order to see whether what is nowadays called a 'wrongful birth claim' might be brought against the hospital authority. On 12 January 1989 a writ was issued against the relevant health authority claiming damages for negligent treatment of PM before the birth. The essence of the claim was that the spina bifida defect in the foetus was not detected when it should have been and had it been so appropriate options or possible choices would have been open to the mother. The health authority admitted the failure but denied negligence.
In May 1989, nearly two months after the pleadings were closed, the solicitors instructed a member of the Bar —as it happens in substitution for earlier counsel. This member of the Bar was to become the first defendant in the present action (I shall refer to him as “the barrister”).
On 6 March 1995 PM committed suicide, dying intestate. Any claim she had for damages to compensate her for the future costs of caring for David ended with her death. After her death EW took on David's care and obtained parental responsibility.
On 15 May 1997 the health authority issued an application to strike out the claim against them for want of prosecution. On 9 June 1998 EW was substituted as administrator of PM's estate. On 6 January 1999 a settlement of the claim against the health authority, which had earlier been in contemplation, came to fruition —the settlement sum was £20,000. The application to strike out had not by then been heard and EW says that the case was settled without his knowing of it.
The present action was brought in 2004 by EW in his personal capacity and in his capacity as administrator of PM's estate. The child David was also joined as claimant but for reasons into which I need not go his claim is no longer pursued. It is common ground he has no course of action.
The claims pursued were: first, a claim against the solicitors, alleging negligence in their conduct of the wrongful birth claim up to the time of PM's death. In his judgment of 9 May 2007 the trial judge Griffith Williams J held in favour of the estate on this claim and awarded EW (as administrator) damages in the sum of £118,829. The solicitors now accept that they were in breach of duty during the period before PM's death. The essential case is that the claim should have been brought to trial before PM's suicide. Had it been so, the shape of the damages claim would or might have been transformed.
The second claim pursued was a claim by EW in his personal capacity against the barrister and the solicitors, alleging failure to bring a wrongful birth claim for his own benefit. This claim was dismissed by the judge on the ground that neither defendant owed any duty to EW in his personal capacity. There was also and thirdly a claim brought by the estate as an alternative to the first claim, alleging that the barrister and the solicitors had negligently undervalued the estate's wrongful birth claim in 199Having upheld the first claim the judge did not have to and did not decide this claim, although he made certain findings relevant to the issues in it.
The solicitors have permission to appeal to assert —in relation to the primary claim brought by EW for the estate —that no reasonable loss flows from their culpable delay in prosecuting the original claim. There are also appeals by the solicitor and the barrister against certain orders for costs made by the judge.
These appeals are fixed for hearing before this constitution of this court in the week of 28 January. The application for permission to cross-appeal is brought by EW in order to challenge the judge's finding that neither the solicitor nor the barrister owed him a duty of care in his personal capacity. He also seeks to appeal the quantum of damages awarded by the judge to the estate on the primary claim.
As regards quantum we may deal with that summarily. Mr Bebb QC for EW has explained the criticisms he would seek to make of the judge's findings in relation to quantum of damage in a skeleton argument, essentially under three heads. We have of course looked carefully at those —they are to be found at paragraph 64 and following of his skeleton. We have concluded however that permission should not be granted on this part of the case. It is entirely freestanding from any other issue arising in this litigation. There is no good reason why permission should not have been sought of the judge when judgment was delivered and, failing permission granted by him, sought of this court at the appropriate time. That was not done. We refuse permission to appeal in relation to the damages
Turning to EW's personal claim. The judge deals with this at paragraph 83 and onwards of his detailed and careful judgment. He discussed a number of the leading authorities relating to duty of care, including references to the conception of an assumption of responsibility. On the facts it is plain there was no retainer by EW of the solicitors until 1997, at which time he was substituted for PM's father as personal representative to pursue the estate's claim. He never asked the solicitors to advise in relation to a personal claim. The solicitors, in fact, had acted against him in relation to certain non-molestation and residence proceedings during PM's lifetime. The estate's claim was of course for PM's losses as David's carer. There was no question of EW being a beneficiary so as to engage such learning as Ross v. Caunters [1980] 1 Ch. 297. The barrister was never instructed for EW. EW had at various times, as we understand it, solicitors of his own. On dates after PM's death, the solicitors from time to time raised the question of whether EW might be joined in the claim in order to make a claim for future loss in respect of David's care. This circumstance, to which I will return very shortly, is critical to Mr Bebb's argument. The barrister was to be instructed to advise on the question. No such advice materialised and the barrister's position is to my mind a little unclear.
Apart from anything else, a claim by EW in his personal capacity would plainly go nowhere unless he could establish that the health authority —the defendant's in the original action —had owed him a duty of care. Ordinarily it may still be said, I think, that the person to whom the health authority owed a duty of care in wrongful birth cases is the mother but there may be circumstances in which such a duty may be owed to the father. The learned judge below cited Hale LJ's judgment at paragraph 93 in Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust [2002] QB 266, and I just take two or three sentences:
“There are cases where it [that is to say the care of the child] is shared more or less equally or where the primary carer is the father. My tentative view is, however, that if there is a sufficient relationship of proximity between the tortfeasor and the father, who not only has but meets his parental responsibility to care for the child, then the father too should have a claim.”
(Checked to audio: no bundle)
The learned judge below proceeded to discuss the evidence concerning EW's relationship with PM. The most relevant passage is at paragraphs 104–105 which, given the time constraints, I will not read out. It appears to be plain that the case proceeded on the basis that at the time of the birth, and implicitly at the time when the health authority allegedly breached its duty of care, the parents were not living together and EW was not contributing at that time to the care of the child. Mr Livesey for the solicitors says that that itself is an end of EW's personal claim. If the father was not engaged at all in the child's care at the time of the putative breach by the health authority —why then there can have been no duty owed by the health authority to him and if there was no duty owed by the health authority there is nothing on which a later claim against the solicitors and barrister might bite.
Mr Bebb however says that the question whether or not the father was involved with the child at the time of its birth or the doctor's breach is not critical. He says it is at least arguably foreseeable that the cost of care might come to be met by the father and moreover it was, as it happens, the father's case in the proceedings —albeit ultimately rejected —that he and PM were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caroline Therese Mathiesen v Clintons (A Firm)
...and as a result, there is no need to speculate as Mr Stewart QC would have the court do. In this regard, Mr Soole QC referred to Whitehead v Searle [2009] 1 WLR 549. It was a professional negligence claim against legal representatives for failing to bring an action against a health authorit......
-
Abbey Forwarding Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v HM Revenue & Customs
...and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Water Works Co [1903] AC 426); the assessment of damages in negligence ( Whitehead v Searle [2008] EWCA Civ 285; [2009] 1 WLR 549), the assessment of damages for patent infringement ( Virgin Airways v Zodiac [2013] UKSC 46; [2014] A......
-
Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd and Another
...at 413C-D, 414C (Nourse LJ), 419F-420D (Schiemann LJ); Phillips v Brewer Dolphin Bell Lawrie Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 143 at [26] (Lord Scott); Whitehead v Searle [2009] 1 WLR 549 at [25] (Laws LJ), [78]–[80] (Rix LJ). In Murfin v Campbell [2011] EWHC 1475, HHJ Pelling QC, sitting as a Judge of the......
-
Ridgewood Properties Group Ltd and Others v Kilpatrick Stockton Llp and Others
...[1996] PNLR 409, Charles v Hugh James Jones & Jenkins [2000] 1 WLR 1278, Dudarec v Andrews [2006] EWCA Civ 256, [2006] 1 WLR 3002 and Whitehead v Searle [2008] EWCA Civ 285, [2009] 1 WLR 549. 34 The second set of principles concerns the quantification of damages in claims for professional......
-
Valuing Bungled Litigation, Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey
...v Andrews [2006] EWCA Civ 256; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 3002, were obiter, and can to a large extent be ignored. The third, Whitehead v Searle [2008] EWCA Civ 285; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 549, is the leading case, because the reasoning was part of the ratio. The facts in brief were that PM gave birth to a c......
-
Supreme Court Judgment: Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors [2019] UKSC 54
...of loss (Charles v Hugh James Jones & Jenkins [2000] 1 WLR 1278, Dudarec v Andrews [2006] 1 WLR 3002, Whitehead v Searle [2009] 1 WLR 549, Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] 2 WLR At first glance the decision appears to violate the principle of compensatory damages, as Mr Watkins is appar......
-
THE PROMISE OF UNIVERSALITY
...Reasoning in Duty of Care Cases” (2013) 33 Legal Studies 119 at 125. 216 For example, Hibbert Pownall & Newton (A Firm) v Whitehead[2008] EWCA Civ 285; [2009] 1 WLR 549 at [42]; Kapfunde v Abbey National plc[1999] 1 ICR 1 at [12]; Paxton v Ramji[2008] ONCA 697; 92 OR (3d) 401 at [71]–[76]. ......
-
It's time exemplary damages were part of the judicial armory in contract
...General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 at 282, Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 883 at 1090, Whitehead v Searle [2009] 1 WLR 549 at 558. 63(1848) 1 Ex 850. 64Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850 at 855. 65See 'The aims of exemplary damages' below. 66[1909] AC 488. 67Jack Be......