Harriton v Stephens

Last updated

Harriton v Stephens
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameAlexia Harriton (by her tutor George Harriton); Appellant v Paul Richard Stevens; Respondent
Decided9 May 2006
Citations [2006] HCA 15, (2006) 226  CLR  52
Case history
Prior actions
Court membership
Judges sitting Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ
Case opinions
(5:1) The doctor did not owe the child a duty of care. (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ; Hayne J not deciding; Kirby J dissenting)(6:1) The common law test for damages for negligence is incapable of application to a situation where the comparison is between life with disabilities and a state of non-existence. (per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon & Crennan JJ; Kirby J dissenting)

Harriton v Stephens, [1] was a decision of the High Court of Australia handed down on 9 May 2006, in which the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim brought by a disabled woman seeking the right to compensation for being born after negligent medical advice that resulted in her mother's pregnancy not being terminated. [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Facts

The appellant, Alexia Harriton, was a 25-year-old woman with severe congenital disabilities that had been caused by her mother's infection with the rubella virus while pregnant with her. [4] These disabilities left Harriton unable to care for herself. [5]

The defendant, Paul Richard Stephens, was the doctor of Harriton's mother while she was pregnant. After conducting and reviewing pathological tests, Dr Stephens advised the mother that she did not have the rubella virus. [6] Harriton's mother claimed that she would have had her pregnancy terminated had she known of the chances of having a disabled child. [2]

Litigation history

Harriton sued Dr Stephens in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, claiming that Dr Stephens failed to exercise reasonable care in his treatment of her mother, and but for that failure her mother would have terminated her pregnancy and Harriton would not have been born. [7] The judge hearing the action, Justice Tim Studdert, dismissed the action as well as two other wrongful life cases brought at the same time.

Two of the three wrongful life cases dismissed by Justice Studdert (Harriton and Waller v James [8] ) were appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal (an appellate division of the Supreme Court). The Court of Appeal, by a majority of 2–1 dismissed both appeals. According to Chief Justice James Spigelman, the proposition that the duty of doctor to an unborn child extended to conduct that, properly performed, would lead to the termination of the pregnancy "should not be accepted as it does not reflect values generally, or even widely, held in the community." [9] [10]

High Court appeal

On 29 April 2005, Harriton and Waller were granted special leave to appeal to the High Court. [11] Their appeals were heard together on 10 November 2005. [12] Bret Walker acted as senior counsel for Harriton instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman; Blake Dawson acted for Stephens with Stephen Gageler as senior counsel.

The High Court decided on 9 May 2006, by a 6–1 majority, to dismiss Harriton's appeal. [1] Waller's appeal was dismissed on the same day with the majority in that judgment following the reasons in Harriton's appeal. [13] The leading judgment was written by Justice Crennan, with whom Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gummow and Heydon concurred, giving her reasons majority support. [14] Justices Callinan and Hayne wrote separate judgments agreeing to dismiss the appeal, while Justice Kirby dissented. [15]

Reaction to judgment

Press reaction

The High Court's judgment was reported in the media as a "landmark case". [16] Richard Ackland, a journalist and lawyer, [17] criticised the judgment in the Sydney Morning Herald, arguing:

What the majority position fails to accommodate is that there is a new modern order. Medical technology can detect abnormalities at very early stages of the development of a foetus. Good medical practice regularly results in the non-existence of human beings. What has been created by way of Alexia [Harriton] and Keeden [Waller] is precisely what the doctors were engaged to prevent being created. [18]

Academic reaction

Margaret Fordham, a legal academic, wrote after the judgment that for wrongful life claims to gain acceptance, "the courts would have to undergo a complete change of heart with respect to the moral and ethical implications of such actions". [19] Academics Evelyn Ellis and Brenda McGivern referred to the judgment as an emphatic rejection of claims for wrongful life and compared the judgment to similar rejections of wrongful life claims by courts in the United Kingdom. [20]

The outcome of the judgment was criticised in the Sydney Law Review , which concluded:

Logic might have demanded the outcome reached by the High Court in Harriton, but fairness demands another. [21]

Dean Stretton, a lawyer writing in the Melbourne University Law Review , claimed that the High Court's judgment "regressed", "depriving the plaintiffs of a legally justified remedy by resort to inconsistent logic and ill-considered policy". [22]

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

Ian David Francis Callinan AC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Garfield Barwick</span> 7th Chief Justice of Australia and politician (1903–1997)

Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick was an Australian judge who was the seventh and longest serving Chief Justice of Australia, in office from 1964 to 1981. He had earlier been a Liberal Party politician, serving as a minister in the Menzies government from 1958 to 1964.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

David Harold Eastman is a former public servant from Canberra, Australia. In 1995, he was wrongfully convicted of the murder of Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. A 2014 judicial inquiry recommended the sentence be quashed and he should be pardoned. On 22 August of the same year, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory quashed the conviction, released Eastman from prison, and ordered a retrial.

Wrongful life is the name given to a cause of action in which someone is sued by a severely disabled child for failing to prevent the child's birth. Typically, a child and the child's parents will sue a doctor or a hospital for failing to provide information about the disability during the pregnancy, or a genetic disposition before the pregnancy. Had the mother been aware of this information, it is argued, she would have had an abortion, or chosen not to conceive at all.

<i>Cattanach v Melchior</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; (2003) 215 CLR 1, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the tort of negligence in a medical context. It was held by a majority of the High Court that the negligent doctor could be held responsible for the costs of raising and maintaining a healthy child.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of federal legislative power under the Constitution of Australia. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Furthermore, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.

The Victims Compensation Tribunal of New South Wales is a former tribunal of the Government of New South Wales that was established to determine the amounts that may be awarded to victims of crime for personal injury in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount which the Victims Compensation Fund of New South Wales would pay to a victim of crime. This tribunal was unique in Australia in that it did not notify nominated defendants of tribunal hearings and therefore did not hear evidence that may exist from such persons.

Margaret Mary Cunneen SC is an Australian barrister, prosecutor and commissioner of a government inquiry.

In Australia, legal professional privilege is a rule of law protecting communications between legal practitioners and their clients from disclosure under compulsion of court or statute. While the rule of legal professional privilege in Australia largely mirrors that of other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there are a number of notable qualifications and modifications to the privilege specific to Australia and its states, and contentious issues about the direction of the privilege.

Bruce Allan Burrell was an Australian convicted kidnapper and double murderer, who in 2006 was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus 44 years for the 1995 murder of 74-year-old Dorothy Davis and the 1997 murder of 39-year-old Kerry Whelan, neither of whom were ever found, with Burrell not revealing the location of his victims' bodies. Burrell died at the Prince of Wales Hospital at Randwick, whilst still in prison custody on 4 August 2016, aged 63, from lung and liver cancer.

<i>Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgment of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd</i> 2007 High Court of Australia decision

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<i>Akiba v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Akiba on behalf of the Torres Strait Regional Seas Claim Group v Commonwealth of Australia [2013] HCA 33; 250 CLR 209 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Native title rights, their extension to other persons and their extinguishment by Statute.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i> Case in Australian High Court regarding judicial review

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Judicial independence is regarded as one of the foundation values of the Australian legal system, such that the High Court held in 2004 that a court capable of exercising federal judicial power must be, and must appear to be, an independent and impartial tribunal. Former Chief Justice Gerard Brennan described judicial independence as existing "to serve and protect not the governors but the governed", albeit one that "rests on the calibre and the character of the judges themselves". Despite general agreement as to its importance and common acceptance of some elements, there is no agreement as to each of the elements of judicial independence.

References

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15 , (2006) 226 CLR 52(9 May 2006), High Court.
  2. 1 2 Shiel, Fergus (10 May 2006). "Court says life is not a sentence". The Age . Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  3. ↑ Pelly, Michael (10 May 2006). "Suing for disability ruled out". The Sydney Morning Herald . Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  4. ↑ [2006] HCA 15 See Crennan J at [210].
  5. ↑ [2006] HCA 15 See Crennan J at [212].
  6. ↑ [2006] HCA 15 See Crennan J at [211].
  7. ↑ [2006] HCA 15 See Kirby J at [21] and [22].
  8. ↑ Harriton v Stephens [2002] NSWSC 461 , Supreme Court (NSW).
  9. ↑ Walmsley, Abadee & Zipser 2007 , p. 293
  10. ↑ Harriton v Stephens [2004] NSWCA 93 , (2004) 59 NSWLR 694, NSW Court of Appeal per Spigelman CJ at [21].
  11. ↑ [2005] HCATrans 301
  12. ↑ [2005] HCATrans 918
  13. ↑ Waller v James [2006] HCA 16 , (2006) 226 CLR 136, High Court.
  14. ↑ Ellis & McGivern 2007 , p. 149
  15. ↑ Walmsley, Abadee & Zipser 2007 , p. 294
  16. ↑ "Wrongful life decision". Radio National. 10 May 2006. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  17. ↑ "Richard Ackland returns to ABC Radio National this summer". ABC. 2 December 2003. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  18. ↑ Ackland, Richard (12 May 2006). "Justice missing in wrongful life cases". The Sydney Morning Herald . Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  19. ↑ Fordham 2007 , p. 149
  20. ↑ Ellis & McGivern 2007 , p. 135 (headnote)
  21. ↑ Grey, Alice (29 January 2024). "Harriton v Stephens: Life, Logic and Legal Fictions". Sydney Law Review. (2006) 28(3) Sydney Law Review 545 ISSN   0082-0512
  22. ↑ Stretton, Dean (29 January 2024). "Wrongful life and the logic of non-existence". Melbourne University Law Review. (2006) 30(3) Melbourne University Law Review 972 ISSN   0025-8938

Cited texts

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.