A Turn-up Down Under: McFarlane in the Light of Cattanach

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

الملفات في هذه المادة

الملفات	الحجم	الصيغة	عرض
لا توجد أي ملفات مرتبطة بهذه المادة.