| dc.creator |
J K Mason |
|
| dc.date |
2004 |
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2013-05-30T13:59:47Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2013-05-30T13:59:47Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2013-05-30 |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/docs/mason.asp |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=openurl&genre=article&issn=17442567&date=2004&volume=1&issue=1&spage=119 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
http://koha.mediu.edu.my:8181/jspui/handle/123456789/5994 |
|
| dc.description |
The current position as to recovery of damages for the upkeep of a healthy child born as the result of a negligent sterilisation has been disturbed by the decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior. The High Court rejected the recent ruling of the House of Lords in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board and decided in favour of recovery by a majority of 4:3. This paper reviews the antecedent litigation and analyses the conflicting opinions of the seven-judge bench in Cattanach. The likely effect on the common law within the Commonwealth is considered in anticipation of the imminent House of Lords decision in Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust. |
|
| dc.publisher |
AHRB Research Centre for Studies in Intellectual Property and Technology Law |
|
| dc.source |
SCRIPT-ed |
|
| dc.title |
A Turn-up Down Under: McFarlane in the Light of Cattanach |
|