*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
NB: Please note that Legal Online will be decommissioned on 31 December 2013. From now on, all updates will include links for Westlaw AU only (with the exception of the Journals available on Checkpoint, which will have an extra PDF). For further information, please click here.
The latest issue of The Tort Law Review (Volume 21 Part 3) contains the following material:
- What is the value of freedom? Nominal damages for false imprisonment
Articles
When practising fails to make perfect: Medical treatment and battery – JA Devereux
The advent of the Civil Liability Acts has caused a re-examination of the utility of the battery action. No cause of action in battery can proceed where a patient has given consent to “the nature of the treatmentâ€, but there is considerable uncertainty as to exactly what this amounts to. Nowhere is this uncertainty more obvious than in the situation where the person providing the treatment is not a medical practitioner or, if he or she is, where the practitioner provides treatment not for a medical purpose but for some other reason. This article reviews the case law and suggests that its apparent contradictions can be reconciled, but only by redefining the focus of battery.
To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].
Adding insult to injury in assessing damages for corporate defamation – Hilary Young
The law of defamation treats corporations almost identically to natural persons. In most common law countries, corporations may bring defamation actions, and the elements are the same for corporate plaintiffs as for natural person plaintiffs, as are the defences. So too are the principles for awarding damages. Both people and corporations have valuable reputations worthy of legal protection. However, given the significantly different effect of reputational injury on humans than on corporations, the principles applied in quantifying damages to each should differ. Aggravating factors relating to emotional injuries should not be considered in assessing reputational injury to corporations, because corporations cannot suffer such injuries. This article considers the relevance to the quantification of damages of: the defendant’s failure to apologise; the defendant’s malice; and the aim of vindicating reputation. Examples are drawn primarily from Canadian law but also from the laws of other common law countries.
To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland – 20 years on – SN Dobson and JA Devereux
In the seminal case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, the House of Lords decided that it was permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a patient, as this was not so much causing death as “letting dieâ€. In the 20 years since Bland’s case was decided, the principle has been reviewed in a number of cases, and enshrined in legislation. This article reviews Bland’s case and the English cases and legislation that have followed it. The article focusses particularly on extensions to the Bland principle and attempts English law has made to define the term “best interestsâ€. The article argues that assigning a precise meaning to the term “best interests†remains elusive.
To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].
For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: WAU – Tort L Review Vol 21 Pt 3 Contents.
