ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017]

- Material facts: wrong sperm used to fertilise eggs

- P claimed for, among other things, cost of raising the child, as well as the loss of
genetic affinity
- Question: courts had to think about whether there’s another pre-inquiry before
using Spandeck. That is, as a court, whether this is an actionable kind of harm that
tort law is going to recognise?  Court said no, it’s not an additional inquiry, it’s all
dealt with in Spandeck. Is this similar to the recognised psychiatric illness in Ngiam?
Is this actionable damage?
The court said no, not going to do this initial query, will use Spandeck. Don’t ask
whether the kind of harm is something that tort law will recognise, but whether D
owed P a specific DOC in respect of a particular kind of loss?
See also: Man Mohan Singh – cost of fertility treatment

Summary of the Spandeck test

- Threshold requirements
o What kind of foreseeability – FF v RF?
o Recognised psychiatric illness
o “Actionable damage”
- Proximity
o Starting point – physical, circumstantial, causal + VAR + RR
o More? Control, knowledge, vulnerability
o Other differences
 Ngiam – not about proximity between P and D but P and an
event/accident. Also, all requirements must be satisfied.
 VAR and RR – whether a factual or normative judgment by the courts.
- Policy considerations
o Can be positive or negative
- Mechanics
o To guess or assume responsibility? Use the test
o Any prima facie DOC – VK Raja
o Analogise first – Menon CJ
o Do we always consider stage 2, even when Stage 1 is not satisfied?