Craig Purshouse and Emma Cave on Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute? (Medical Law Review)

"Fifty years of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976: A spent statute?"
Craig Purshouse, Emma Cave
Medical Law Review, Volume 34, Issue 1
Published online: February 2026

Introduction: In July of this year, 50 years will have passed since the enactment of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, the statute governing tort liability for prenatal injuries in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Golden anniversaries are often worth commemorating and, given that the Act was a response to the thalidomide disaster, this one might seem especially deserving of celebration. Alas, in this commentary, we have come to spoil the party. We are far from the only killjoys. From its earliest conception, the Act elicited a stream of criticism. Commenting on the Bill that led to the Act, Ian Kennedy and RG Edwards believed that it represented ‘a number of ad hoc decisions without any coherent structure either in legal reasoning or in social policy’ that would not ‘satisfy the needs of most children’. The late Margaret Brazier was equally scathing, attacking its ‘complex and convoluted rules’ and concluding that it ‘does little for the reputation of Parliamentary draughtsmen and has proved a nightmare to operate in practice’.