The London Gynaecology and Fertility Centre, run by the infertility specialist Ian Craft, last week settled a unique High Court claim by an Austrian businessman that the clinic used his semen without his consent.
Michael von Schonburg sued the clinic for unauthorised use of his semen after learning that his former girlfriend had given birth to a daughter using his frozen semen without telling him.
Last week, shortly before a five day hearing was due to start in the High Court, the wealthy company director, aged 40, accepted a settlement on confidential terms. The clinic's solicitors, Withers, refused to comment at all on the settlement. Unusually, they were not even willing to name Mr von Schonburg's solicitors.
In his writ, claiming damages for breach of contract and breach of duty, he claimed that he had suffered distress, indignation, and anxiety as a result of the clinic's actions. He claimed that he was never told his semen would be frozen and preserved. He also asked the clinic to indemnify him against any claim for child maintenance.
Mr von Schonburg claimed that his relationship with Andrea Sladek, the child's mother, began in Switzerland in 1988, after her marriage had broken up, and lasted until 1994, when she moved to Paris and he moved to Vienna.
They met in London the following year, when she allegedly asked him to provide blood and semen samples for testing at the London Gynaecology and Fertility Centre because she was having fertility problems. He claims the clinic assured him that his semen would be used only for testing, not for in vitro fertilisation treatment.
Later that year, he alleged, Mrs Sladek began fertility treatment using his semen, and in June 1996 she gave birth to a daughter, Eve. The clinic claimed in its defence to the action that Mr von Schonburg signed a consent form allowing his sperm to be frozen and stored.
But last week Mr Justice Buckley was told at a brief hearing that the case had now been settled. As part of the deal, both sides have been banned from revealing the terms of the settlement. The case is unique in the English courts, although similar claims have been brought in the United States.