This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/17/father-loses-damages-claim-over-forged-ivf-signature
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Father loses damages claim over forged IVF signature | Father loses damages claim over forged IVF signature |
(30 days later) | |
A father whose ex-partner forged his signature to conceive a daughter has lost a damages action against a London IVF clinic at the court of appeal. | A father whose ex-partner forged his signature to conceive a daughter has lost a damages action against a London IVF clinic at the court of appeal. |
The man, who can only be identified as ARB, sued IVF Hammersmith after his ex, R, was impregnated with a frozen egg fertilised by his sperm in October 2010, months after they had separated. He claimed compensation for the cost of the upkeep of the child. | The man, who can only be identified as ARB, sued IVF Hammersmith after his ex, R, was impregnated with a frozen egg fertilised by his sperm in October 2010, months after they had separated. He claimed compensation for the cost of the upkeep of the child. |
The father successfully argued the clinic was in breach of contract because it failed to get his consent for the procedure. But senior judges upheld a previous ruling that he was not entitled to a payout because of “public policy” that meant he could not be compensated for the cost of bringing up a healthy child. | The father successfully argued the clinic was in breach of contract because it failed to get his consent for the procedure. But senior judges upheld a previous ruling that he was not entitled to a payout because of “public policy” that meant he could not be compensated for the cost of bringing up a healthy child. |
The relationship between ARB and R, who already had a son by IVF, had broken down irretrievably in May 2010 and she had moved out of the home they had shared. A number of embryos had previously been frozen with both parties’ consent and they signed agreements on an annual basis for these to remain in storage. | The relationship between ARB and R, who already had a son by IVF, had broken down irretrievably in May 2010 and she had moved out of the home they had shared. A number of embryos had previously been frozen with both parties’ consent and they signed agreements on an annual basis for these to remain in storage. |
In October 2010, R handed the clinic a form giving consent to thaw, signed by her and purportedly signed by ARB. On the basis of this document, an embryo was thawed and successfully implanted. | In October 2010, R handed the clinic a form giving consent to thaw, signed by her and purportedly signed by ARB. On the basis of this document, an embryo was thawed and successfully implanted. |
Following a high court hearing, Mr Justice Jay found in October last year that R had traced in ballpoint pen over a pencil outline of ARB’s signature on the form. The judge said he was satisfied that ARB had no intention of having another child with R after their split. | Following a high court hearing, Mr Justice Jay found in October last year that R had traced in ballpoint pen over a pencil outline of ARB’s signature on the form. The judge said he was satisfied that ARB had no intention of having another child with R after their split. |
The child, E, was “by all accounts a lovely, healthy girl” who lived most of the time with R, with ARB discharging his parental duties in a separate household. | The child, E, was “by all accounts a lovely, healthy girl” who lived most of the time with R, with ARB discharging his parental duties in a separate household. |
The father argued he was entitled to compensation from the clinic because it had breached its contract with him by failing to obtain his “written or informed consent”. | The father argued he was entitled to 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 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. |
Jay said at the time of the ruling: “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.” | Jay said at the time of the ruling: “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. | 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. |
In a ruling delivered in London on Monday, three senior judges dismissed his appeal, saying the policy did apply in ARB’s case. | In a ruling delivered in London on Monday, three senior judges dismissed his appeal, saying the policy did apply in ARB’s case. |
Lady Justice Davies, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Richards, said: “Whatever the circumstances of E’s birth, her father has accepted his share of responsibility for her upbringing; he wishes to treat her in the same way as his other children.” | Lady Justice Davies, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Richards, said: “Whatever the circumstances of E’s birth, her father has accepted his share of responsibility for her upbringing; he wishes to treat her in the same way as his other children.” |
In a statement after last year’s high court ruling, ARB said his claim was never about money but “justice”. He said: “It is imperative that nobody should have to experience what we have lived through ever again.” | In a statement after last year’s high court ruling, ARB said his claim was never about money but “justice”. He said: “It is imperative that nobody should have to experience what we have lived through ever again.” |
Family law | Family law |
IVF | IVF |
news | news |
Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
Share via Email | Share via Email |
Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
Reuse this content | Reuse this content |
Previous version
1
Next version