H v Fetal Assessment Centre

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2015 (2) SA 193 (CC)

H v Fetal Assessment Centre
2015 (2) SA 193 (CC)

2015 (2) SA p193

Citation	2015 (2) SA 193 (CC)
Case No	CCT 74/14; [2014] ZACC 34
Court	Constitutional Court
Judge	Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Leeuw AJ, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J and Van der Westhuizen J
Heard	August 28, 2014
Judgment	December 11, 2014
Counsel	RP Hoffman SC (with N Lawrenson) for the applicant.; S Burger SC (with G van der Spuy) for the respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde E

Delict — Specific forms — Wrongful life — Child's claim against doctor for its damages flowing from doctor's failure to inform child's pregnant mother of F high risk of it being born with medical condition — Common law could potentially be developed to recognise claim.

Headnote : Kopnota

H, a boy with Down's syndrome — who was represented by his mother — sued the Fetal Assessment Centre for his damages flowing from its alleged failure to G warn his pregnant mother that there was a high risk of him being born with the syndrome. H alleged that had his mother been informed of the risk she would have terminated the pregnancy. The damages he claimed were for his past and future medical expenses, for disability and for loss of amenities of life. The Centre excepted to the claim as not disclosing a cause of action, and the high court upheld the exception and dismissed it. H then appealed H directly to the Constitutional Court. In issue was whether the common law might be developed to recognise the child's claim

Held, that it might be. (Paragraph [81] at 219E – G.) This because:

•

Authority barring the claim did not take into account the right of a child in s 28(2) of the Constitution, nor other constitutional rights. (Paragraph [52] at 211E – 212A.) I

•

The elements of the law of delict could accommodate the claim. (Paragraphs [53] – [77] at 212B – 218G.)

•

There was some foreign authority for such a claim. (Paragraphs [35], [45] and n55 at 205D – 206A, 209A – C and 208I.)

Held, though, that it remained for the high court to determine whether the claim did exist, and if so, in what form. (Paragraph [81] at 219E – G.) J

2015 (2) SA p194

A The Constitutional Court accordingly upheld the appeal, set aside the order of the high court, and replaced it with an order granting H leave to amend his particulars of claim. (Paragraph [83] at 220A – B.)

Cases Considered

Annotations

Case law

Southern Africa B

AD and Another v DW and Others (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae; Department for Social Development as Intervening Party)2008 (3) SA 183 (CC) (2008 (4) BCLR 359; [2007] ZACC 27): referred to

Administrator, Natal v Edouard1990 (3) SA 581 (A): referred to

Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening)2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) (2002 (1) SACR 79; 2001 (10) BCLR 995; [2001] ZACC 22): dictum in para [80] applied C

Children's Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA): referred to

Constantaras v BCE Foodservice Equipment (Pty) Ltd2007 (6) SA 338 (SCA): dictum in paras [30] – [31] applied

Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development2015 (1) SA 1 (CC) (2014 (12) BCLR 1397; [2014] ZACC 28): referred to D

Dudley v City of Cape Town and Another2005 (5) SA 429 (CC) ((2004) 25 ILJ 991; 2004 (8) BCLR 805): referred to

Du Plessis and Others v De Klerk and Another1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) (1996 (5) BCLR 658; E [1996] ZACC 10): referred to

Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) (1996 (1) BCLR 1; [1995] ZACC 13): referred to

Fose v Minister of Safety and Security1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) (1997 (7) BCLR 851; [1997] ZACC 6): referred to

Friedman v Glicksman1996 (1) SA 1134 (W): referred to F

Girdwood v Girdwood1995 (4) SA 698 (C) ([1995] 1 All SA 650): referred to

Group Five Building Ltd v Government of the Republic of South Africa (Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs)1993 (2) SA 593 (A): referred to

H v Kingsbury Foetal Assessment Centre (Pty) Ltd [2014] ZAWCHC 61: reversed on appeal G

Hirschowitz Flionis v Bartlett and Another2006 (3) SA 575 (SCA) ([2006] 3 All SA 95): referred to

Justice Alliance of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others2011 (5) SA 388 (CC) (2011 (10) BCLR 1017; [2011] ZACC 23): referred to

K v Minister of Safety and Security2005 (6) SA 419 (CC) (2005 (9) BCLR 835; [2005] 8 BLLR 749; [2005] ZACC 8): dictum in paras [34] – [35] applied H

Kotze v Kotze2003 (3) SA 628 (T): referred to

Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another I 2011 (1) SA 400 (CC) (2011 (2) BCLR 150; [2010] ZACC 25): referred to

Lee v Minister for Correctional Services2013 (2) SA 144 (CC) (2013 (2) BCLR 129; [2012] ZACC 30): referred to

Loureiro and Others v Imvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd2014 (3) SA 394 (CC) (2014 (5) BCLR 511; [2014] ZACC 4): referred to

Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd2011 (3) SA 237 (CC) (2011 (5) BCLR 453; [2011] ZACC 3): followed J

2015 (2) SA p195

Minister of Law and Order v Kadir1995 (1) SA 303 (A): referred to A

Minister of Police v Mboweni and Another2014 (6) SA 256 (SCA): referred to

Minister of Welfare and Population Development v Fitzpatrick and Others2000 (3) SA 422 (CC) (2000 (7) BCLR 713; [2000] ZACC 6): referred to

Mpofu v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others B (Centre for Child Law as Amicus Curiae) 2013 (9) BCLR 1072 (CC) ([2013] ZACC 15): referred to

Mukheiber v Raath and Another1999 (3) SA 1065 (SCA) ([1999] 3 All SA 490; [1999] ZASCA 39): referred to

Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Ltd v Gründlingh and Others2007 (6) SA 350 (CC) (2006 (8) BCLR 883; [2006] ZACC 6): referred to C

Road Accident Fund v Mtati2005 (6) SA 215 (SCA) ([2005] 3 All SA 340): referred to

S v Basson2007 (3) SA 582 (CC) (2007 (1) SACR 566; 2005 (12) BCLR 1192; [2005] ZACC 10): referred to

S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso1996 (1) SA 388 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 748; D 1995 (12) BCLR 1579; [1996] 1 All SA 11; [1995] ZACC 11): referred to

S v Makwanyane and Another1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) (1995 (2) SACR 1; 1995 (6) BCLR 665; [1995] ZACC 3): referred to

S v Mamabolo (E TV and Others Intervening)2001 (3) SA 409 (CC) (2001 (1) SACR 686; 2001 (5) BCLR 449; [2001] ZACC 17): referred to E

S v Thebus and Another2003 (6) SA 505 (CC) (2003 (2) SACR 319; 2003 (10) BCLR 1100; [2003] ZACC 12): referred to

Sonderup v Tondelli and Another2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC) (2001 (2) BCLR 152; [2000] ZACC 26): referred to

Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) (2007 (3) BCLR 300; [2006] ZACC 16): referred to F

Stewart and Another v Botha and Another2007 (6) SA 247 (C) (2007 (9) BCLR 1012): referred to

Stewart and Another v Botha and Another2008 (6) SA 310 (SCA): criticised

Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA) ([2006] 1 All SA 6; [2005] ZASCA 73): referred to G

Trope and Others v South African Reserve Bank1993 (3) SA 264 (A): referred to

Union of Refugee Women and Others v Director: Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others2007 (4) SA 395 (CC) (2007 (4) BCLR 339; [2006] ZACC 23): referred to.

Australia H

Harriton v Stephens(2006) 226 CLR 52 ((2006) 226 ALR 391; (2006) 80 ALJR 791; [2006] HCA 15): considered.

Czech Republic

Case 1 (Olomouc High Court, case No 192/2008): referred to I

Case 24 (Brno Regional Court, case No 66/2001): referred to.

England

McKay v Essex Area Health Authority[1982] QB 1166 (CA) ([1982] 2 All ER 771): referred to

Salih v Enfield Health Authority[1991] 3 All ER 400 (HL): referred to. J

2015 (2) SA p196

European Court of Human Rights A

P and S v Poland (ECHR case No 57375/08 (2008)): referred to

RR v Poland (ECHR case No 27617/04 (2011)): referred to

Tysiac v Poland (ECHR case No 5410/03 (2007-I)): referred to.

Germany

7 BVerfGE 198 (1958) (Lüth case): referred to B

86 BGHZ 240 (1983): referred to.

Netherlands

2006 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 606 (Kelly case): considered.

United States C

Curlender v Bio-Science Laboratories 106 Cal App 3d 811: referred to

Harbeson v Parke-Davis, Inc 98 Wash 2d 460: referred to

Jacobs v Theimer 519 S W 2d 846 (Tex 1975): referred to

Planned Parenthood v Casey505 US 833 (1992): referred to

Procanik v Cillo97 NJ 339 (1984): referred to

Roe v Wade410 US 113 (1973) (35 L ed 2d 147): referred to D

Turpin v Sortini31 Cal 3d 220 (1982): referred to.

Case Information

RP Hoffman SC (with N Lawrenson) for the applicant.

S Burger SC (with G van der Spuy) for the respondent.

E An appeal from the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town (Baartman J).

Order

1.

Leave to appeal is granted.

2.

F The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

3.

The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with:

'The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the particulars of claim within 14 days.'

Judgment

Froneman J (Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Leeuw AJ, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring): G

Introduction

H [1] Prospective parents, who are fortunate enough to have access to that kind of medical care, often obtain medical advice during pregnancy to ascertain whether their child will be born in good health. If they are told that the child will probably suffer from a serious medical condition or congenital disability, the mother may choose not to give birth to the child. That choice is given to her under South African law. [1] Our law also I recognises a claim by the parents for patrimonial damages in circumstances where that kind of medical advice should have been given to

2015 (2) SA...