ACB v Thomson Medical: Negligence, IVF Error, and Upkeep Claim

In ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim by ACB against Thomson Medical and its fertility clinic for negligence and breach of contract after an IVF procedure resulted in her egg being fertilized with a third-party's sperm instead of her husband's. The plaintiff sought damages, including the child's upkeep costs. The court denied the claim for upkeep, holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for the child's upkeep in both contract and in tort.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff is not entitled in law to claim damages for Baby P’s upkeep in both contract and in tort.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment Reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding negligence in IVF procedure resulting in a child born with different genetic traits. The court denied the plaintiff's claim for the child's upkeep.

1.7 Decision Date

14 January 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
ACB	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim for upkeep denied	Lost	N Sreenivasan SC, Palaniappan Sundararaj
Thomson Medical Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Upkeep claim dismissed	Won	Lok Vi Ming SC, Audrey Chiang Ju Hua, Calvin Lim, Nerissa Tan
Thomson Fertility Centre Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Upkeep claim dismissed	Won	Lok Vi Ming SC, Audrey Chiang Ju Hua, Calvin Lim, Nerissa Tan
Eleanor Quah	Defendant	Individual	Upkeep claim dismissed	Won	Lok Vi Ming SC, Audrey Chiang Ju Hua, Calvin Lim, Nerissa Tan
Chia Choy May	Defendant	Individual	Upkeep claim dismissed	Won	Lok Vi Ming SC, Audrey Chiang Ju Hua, Calvin Lim, Nerissa Tan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	J	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
N Sreenivasan SC	Straits Law Practice LLC
Palaniappan Sundararaj	Straits Law Practice LLC
Lok Vi Ming SC	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Audrey Chiang Ju Hua	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Calvin Lim	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Nerissa Tan	Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff underwent IVF treatment at Thomson Fertility Centre.
Plaintiff's egg was mistakenly fertilized with sperm from a third-party donor.
Plaintiff gave birth to a daughter, Baby P, who did not share the couple's genetic traits.
Plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of contract.
Plaintiff sought damages, including the costs of raising Baby P.
Defendants applied to have the upkeep claim determined as a preliminary issue.

5. Formal Citations

ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, Suit No 467 of 2012 (Summons No 4264 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 9

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-01	Couple sought medical advice for difficulty conceiving.
2007-01-01	Couple underwent successful IVF treatment at the second defendant and had a son.
2009-01-01	Couple went for another IVF at the second defendant.
2010-10-01	Plaintiff delivered a daughter, Baby P, conceived via IVF with a third-party's sperm.
2012-06-04	Plaintiff sued the defendants in the tort of negligence and breach of contract.
2012-07-16	Defendants filed their defence.
2012-10-08	Defendants filed Summons No 5179 of 2012 to determine a question of law.
2014-01-20	Appeal heard regarding the order on the upkeep claim.
2014-02-25	Appeal allowed regarding the order on the upkeep claim.
2014-07-08	Plaintiff amended her Statement of Claim to delete the claim for provisional damages.
2014-08-14	Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendants by consent with damages to be assessed.
2014-08-28	Defendants took out Summons No 4264 of 2014 to have the question of the upkeep claim tried as a preliminary issue.
2014-10-13	SUM 4246/2014 heard and judgment reserved.
2015-01-15	Judgment Reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court acknowledged the negligence but focused on the specific issue of the upkeep claim.
- Category: Substantive
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court considered the breach of contract claim in relation to the upkeep claim.
- Category: Substantive
Damages for Upkeep of a Child
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim damages for the upkeep of the child.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2000] 2 AC 59
  - [2003] 215 CLR 1

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Upkeep costs for the child

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Medical Malpractice
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 36	Singapore	Cited for a prior decision in the same case regarding striking out the upkeep claim.
Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 1 AC 309	England	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
Parkinson v St James and Seacroft University Hospital NHS Trust	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 3 WLR 376	England	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
A (A Minor) v A Health & Social Services Trust	High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland	Yes	[2010] NIQB 108	Northern Ireland	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
Rouse v Wesley	Michigan Court of Appeals	Yes	(1992) 196 Mich App 624	United States	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
Chaffee v Seslar	Court of Appeals of Indiana	Yes	(2003) 786 N E 2d 705	United States	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
Boone v Mullendore	Court of Appeal of Florida	Yes	(1982) 416 So 2d 718	United States	Cited as a precedent where the courts have tried issues of upkeep as a preliminary issue or on a summary basis.
Cattanach v Melchior	High Court of Australia	Yes	[2003] 215 CLR 1	Australia	Cited as a case concerning a claim for the expenses of bringing up a child conceived after a negligent sterilisation procedure, where the majority allowed the claim.
McFarlene v Tayside Health Board	House of Lords	Yes	[2000] 2 AC 59	England	Cited as a case concerning a claim for upkeep of a child conceived after a negligent sterilisation procedure, where the majority formed the opposite view from the majority in Cattanach.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 100	Singapore	Cited to show that Singapore courts are prepared to allow claims for pure economic loss.
Byrne v Ryan	Supreme Court	Yes	[2009] 4 IR 542	Ireland	Cited as a case that had not 'well-received' Cattanach.
Bevilacqua v Altenkirk	Supreme Court of British Columbia	Yes	[2004] BCSC 945	Canada	Cited as a case that had not 'well-received' Cattanach.
G and M v Sydney Robert Armellin	Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory	Yes	[2008] ACTSC 68	Australia	Cited as a case that agreed with the reasoning of the minority in Cattanach but was bound to follow the majority’s ruling.
Waller v James	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2013] NSWSC 497	Australia	Cited as a case that sought to confine the application of Cattanach to cases where the parents did not want a child at all.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 33 r 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Termination of Pregnancy Act (Cap 324, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

In-Vitro Fertilisation
IVF
Negligence
Breach of Contract
Upkeep Claim
Wrongful Birth
Genetic Affinity

15.2 Keywords

IVF
negligence
Thomson Medical
upkeep
Singapore
High Court
medical negligence
assisted reproduction

16. Subjects

Medical Law
Family Law
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Medical Negligence
Contract Law
Tort Law
Family Law