Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/1119
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLunney, Marken
dc.date.accessioned2008-12-16T16:00:00Z-
dc.date.issued2004-
dc.identifier.citationUniversity of New England Law Journal, 1(1), p. 145-155en
dc.identifier.issn1449-2199en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/1119-
dc.description.abstractFew areas of the law of negligence have excited as much recent comment as the liability of medical practitioners for negligence that results in the birth of an unplanned child. The spate of literature has been sparked by a number of recent cases, particularly in the United Kingdom, dealing with this issue. In McFarlane v Tayside Health Board a unanimous House of Lords held that the negligence of a medical practitioner that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent birth did not give rise to a claim for damages with respect to the costs of raising the now extant child. This controversial decision led the Court of Appeal in England to distinguish McFarlane where the child was born with a disability so that a claim would lie for the extra costs - those over and above the normal expenses of raising a healthy child - associated with the child's disability. A further extension was made by a differently constituted Court of Appeal in Rees v Darlington Health Authority where the claim was for the extra expenses incurred by a disabled parent who had to care for a child born as a result of the negligence of the medical practitioner. In the meantime, the High Court of Australia reached a different conclusion to the House of Lords in McFarlane by holding that the reasonable costs of rearing an unplanned child were recoverable in an action against the negligent medical practitioner.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherUniversity of New Englanden
dc.relation.ispartofUniversity of New England Law Journalen
dc.titleA Right Old Mess: Rees v Darlington Health Authority [2003] 3 WLR 1091en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dcterms.accessRightsUNE Greenen
local.contributor.firstnameMarken
local.profile.schoolSchool of Lawen
local.profile.emailmlunney@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC2en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20081021-5en
local.publisher.placeAustraliaen
local.format.startpage145en
local.format.endpage155en
local.identifier.volume1en
local.identifier.issue1en
local.title.subtitleRees v Darlington Health Authority [2003] 3 WLR 1091en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnameLunneyen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:mlunneyen
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-1462-5960en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1143en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleA Right Old Messen
local.output.categorydescriptionC2 Non-Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.relation.urlhttp://tlc.une.edu.au/lawjournal/index.php?action=showarticle&articleid=6&journalid=8en
local.relation.urlhttp://tlc.une.edu.au/lawjournal/en
local.search.authorLunney, Marken
local.open.fileurlhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/18c18967-6af9-45c7-9e40-044e287e6eafen
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.year.published2004en
local.fileurl.openhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/18c18967-6af9-45c7-9e40-044e287e6eafen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
Files in This Item:
5 files
File Description SizeFormat 
open/SOURCE02.pdfPublisher version (open access)80.72 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show simple item record
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.