Recovery of upkeep costs, claims for loss of autonomy and loss of genetic affinity: fertile ground for development in Australia?

Whether the law should permit parents to recover the costs of raising a child that they never intended to have is one of the most vexed questions in the law of negligence. In ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore considered this issue in a unique factual context: where the complaint of the appellant was not that she did not want a child but, because of a negligently performed IVF procedure, that she did not want this particular child. The Court ultimately denied the appellant’s claims for upkeep costs and for loss of autonomy, but recognised a novel head of damage: ‘loss of genetic affinity’. In this note we deal with: (i) a preliminary issue of causation, in respect of which we argue that the Court impermissibly focused on the purpose of the loss suffered; (ii) the Court’s reasons for refusing to award upkeep costs or to recognise loss of autonomy as a compensable head of damage; and (iii) the recognition of loss of genetic affinity, which we object to for the principal reason that it is indistinguishable from an award for loss of autonomy.