Wrongful conception CASES

In English law, wrongful conception is a claim by a parent that negligent sterilisation, contraception, or related advice led to an unplanned pregnancy and the birth of a child. It is distinct from wrongful birth (where negligent antenatal care or advice deprives parents of information about disability) and from “wrongful life” (not recognised in English law).

Definition and Principles

Wrongful conception usually follows a failed vasectomy or tubal ligation, negligent fitting or monitoring of contraception, or incorrect advice about fertility or the need for contraception. The parent must prove breach of duty (for example, substandard technique, poor follow-up, or inadequate advice about failure rates and checks), causation (that proper care would have avoided conception), and loss. Consent and counselling duties matter: patients should be given clear information about success rates, confirmation testing, and the need for alternative contraception until success is confirmed.

Damages Framework

Healthy child. Recoverable heads commonly include pain, suffering and loss of amenity from pregnancy and birth; associated medical and travel costs; loss of earnings and care during pregnancy and immediate postnatal period. The ordinary costs of raising a healthy child are not recoverable.

Child with disability. In addition to the pregnancy-related losses, the extra reasonable costs attributable to the child’s disability may be recoverable (care, equipment, therapies, accommodation adjustments). Ordinary child-rearing costs remain irrecoverable.

Loss of autonomy (conventional award). Courts recognise a modest, conventional sum to mark the infringement of reproductive autonomy when negligent care results in an unwanted pregnancy and birth. This is in addition to the pregnancy-related losses and does not depend on proving psychiatric injury.

Common Examples

  • Failed sterilisation where post-procedure checks were not performed or communicated and the parent conceived while reasonably believing they were infertile.
  • Negligent contraception advice (for example, omitting to warn about drug interactions reducing pill efficacy) leading to conception.
  • Incorrect advice that a partner’s sterilisation was effective without advising a period of alternative contraception pending confirmation.

Causation and Evidence

The claimant must show that, but for the negligence, conception would not have occurred (for example, proper technique or confirmation testing would have avoided pregnancy, or adequate advice would have led to continued contraception). Helpful evidence includes clinic records, consent forms, post-procedure testing results (or their absence), written advice about efficacy and timelines, and witness statements about what was said and done.

Legal Implications

  • Scope of duty: the claim concerns avoiding conception; it is not a guarantee of a particular family size or a warranty of success.
  • Heads of loss: ordinary child-rearing costs for a healthy child are excluded; disability-related additional costs may be recovered where the disability is within the scope of the negligent failure.
  • Limitation: the primary period for personal injury claims is generally three years from the date of knowledge (commonly pregnancy detection or birth); dependants may have related claims with their own time limits.

Practical Importance

For claimants, assemble a clear chronology from pre-procedure counselling to post-procedure checks, and quantify pregnancy-related losses carefully. For defendants, test technique, follow-up processes, and the clarity of advice about failure rates and confirmation testing; consider whether alleged heads of loss stray into excluded child-rearing costs. Both sides should keep the analysis distinct from wrongful birth and from claims on behalf of the child.

See also: Wrongful birth; Informed consent; Clinical negligence; Scope of duty; Psychiatric injury; Limitation.