Court Of Appeal Bring Law Into Line With Advances In Medical Science
The Court of Appeal’s ground breaking judgment this week on the legal rights and obligations arising out of the storage of sperm may have implications for the wider law.
The Court ruled that a group of men undergoing chemotherapy, who stored their sperm with the North Bristol NHS Trust, had the right to compensation when the trust damaged the samples.
The case was seen as so important that both the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, two of the country’s most senior judges, sat in judgment.
The Court ruled that a compensation claim can arise out of the loss or damage to sperm samples and overturned a ruling made earlier this year in Exeter County Court.
The case was brought by Chris Thorne of law firm Foot Anstey on behalf of a group of young men who were diagnosed as having cancer in 2002.
The claimants underwent chemotherapy treatment, which could have made them infertile, so they opted to store samples of sperm in the hope that, on recovery from their illness, they would be able to start a family.
But the health trust allowed the samples to thaw and with deprived the men of the prospects of being able to start a family.
Mr Thorne said: “Unfortunately the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill 2008 which recently passed through parliament does not address the ownership of sperm samples and so the only way to clarify the law was to take this case to the Court of Appeal.
“The Lord Chief Justice clearly indicated the Court’s unease at the prospect of a man losing something as valuable as the key to a family life without any legal remedy. Their Lordships’ willingness to grasp such a controversial issue means the law is bought up to date with the fast moving world of scientific and medical research.
“Whilst Parliament has struggled with the passage of the Human Embryo and Fertilisation Bill for years, the judiciary have shown them the way forward by taking decisive action.
“The impact on each man varied significantly, from mild psychological distress to significant psychological injury and of course the inability to father children, although fortunately in some cases, members of this group regained their fertility”.
“This case will also affect others currently going through the legal system including two groups of men for whom I act in cases in Edinburgh and Sheffield. The issues at stake in these cases are potentially life changing and the effect on individuals should not be overlooked nor underestimated.
“The court found that live tissue stored away from the body cannot, if damaged, give rise to a claim for personal injury, although the Court recognised the validity of the arguments raised by the claimants. The Lord Chief Justice said that extending the definition of a personal injury in this area would give rise to “uncomfortable anomalies”.
“However the Court’s finding that a sperm sample is the property of the donor is a significant extension of the law of property. The Court rejected the argument that it was bound by law stretching back over 400 years relating to a corpse or body part being incapable of ownership.”
The Court of Appeal went further, making it clear that the claimants are entitled to compensation for the distress or psychiatric injury suffered as result of the loss of the samples which were in the safe-keeping of the health Trust, a further extension of the limited circumstances in which such claims may arise.
One effect of the decision is that the time for making a claim resulting from the loss of property is 6 years not the 3 years applicable to an injury claim. So any me
Published 04/02/2009
