1 525 CASE COMMENT CUMBERLAND V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Anthea Williams * In Cumberland v Accident Compensation Corporation, the Court of Appeal held that where a mother is denied the information that her foetus is disabled, and thus loses the opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, the "continuing pregnancy" can be a personal injury covered by the Accident Compensation scheme. This article examines the judgment and argues the Court of Appeal has extended New Zealand case law on "wrongful births" without explicitly acknowledging this. The author suggests that, by focussing purely on the physical effects on the mother and her lost opportunity to determine the medical treatment given to her, the Court has avoided the value laden approach that has plagued other wrongful birth cases. I INTRODUCTION Cumberland v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cumberland) 1 is a recent "wrongful birth" case in which the Court of Appeal expanded the coverage of pregnancy under the statutory Accident Compensation scheme (the Scheme). 2 In Cumberland, the treatment provider had failed to identify indications of spina bifida in a 20-week foetus at an ultrasound, and so the case concerned the impact of the continuation of the pregnancy on the mother, rather than the conception itself. The Court held that the continuation of the pregnancy was a personal injury to the mother for which she had coverage under the Scheme. Although the Court viewed its decision as consistent with that of * BA, LLB (Hons) (Victoria University of Wellington), LLM (Toronto), Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court. The views expressed are those of the author and not of her employer. 1 Cumberland v Accident Compensation Corporation  NZCA 590,  2 NZLR 373 [Cumberland]. 2 Definitions of the phrase "wrongful birth", and of "wrongful conception", vary. In this article, the term "wrongful birth" is used to describe cases taken by a parent alleging that, but for the negligence of a medical practitioner (for example, in performing a vasectomy or not advising of the potential for failure of a procedure), a (healthy) child would not have been conceived/born. The term "wrongful life" is generally used to describe a claim brought in the name of a child, who is generally disabled, that, but for the negligence of a medical practitioner, would not have been born. For further information, see Stephen Todd "Wrongful Conception, Wrongful Birth and Wrongful Life" (2005) 27 Syd LR 525 at 526.
2 526 (2014) 45 VUWLR the Supreme Court in Allenby v Hannam (Allenby), 3 a 2012 wrongful birth case, Cumberland represents an extension of Allenby and thus an extension of coverage for pregnancy under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the 2001 Act). 4 This article summarises the issues, reasoning and conclusions of the Court in Cumberland and places the case in the context of New Zealand and overseas case law. It suggests that, by focussing purely on the physical effects on the mother and her lost opportunity to determine the medical treatment given to her, the Court has avoided the value laden approach that has plagued other wrongful birth cases. II FACTS The appellant, Ms C, became pregnant and had a routine ultrasound scan 20 weeks into her pregnancy (the scan). No anatomical abnormality of the foetus was detected. 5 However, at birth in May 2007, the baby was found to have spina bifida. The expert opinion was that the indications of this disease had been overlooked in the scan. In September 2007, the appellant made a claim to the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) for coverage for a treatment injury under the Act. 6 She claimed the continuation of her pregnancy was a treatment injury because the incorrect diagnosis at the scan deprived her of the option of not continuing with the pregnancy. Ms C also filed a claim on behalf of the baby. The Corporation declined Ms C s claim, but, following application by Ms C, the Corporation's reviewer determined that Ms C had suffered a personal injury covered by the 2001 Act, relying on the High Court decision in Accident Compensation Corporation v D (ACC v D) 7 (examined briefly later). The Corporation successfully appealed to the District Court, and the case proceeded as a case stated appeal on two questions of law to the High Court. Faire J answered the questions in favour of the Corporation, and the appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the following question: "Has the [appellant] suffered a personal injury under the Accident Compensation Act 2001?". The Court ultimately gave a provisional "yes", subject to remitting the case to the District Court on the factual issue of whether Ms C would have been able to obtain a termination after the scan. 3 Allenby v Hannam  NZSC 33,  3 NZLR 425 [Allenby]. 4 Originally called the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001, but renamed in An ultrasound scan at around weeks of pregnancy is part of standard maternal care in New Zealand. A primary purpose of the scan is to examine for anatomical abnormalities in the foetus. 6 The Corporation is the Crown entity responsible for administering New Zealand's statutory universal nofault accidental injury scheme. 7 Accident Compensation Corporation v D  NZAR 679 (HC) [ACC v D (HC)], appeal at  NZCA 576 [ACC v D (CA)].
3 CASE COMMENT CUMBERLAND V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION 527 To aid in explaining the impact of the case, a short description of the legal background to wrongful birth cases in New Zealand is set out below. III HISTORY OF WRONGFUL BIRTH CASES IN NEW ZEALAND Eligibility under the Scheme for coverage of "wrongful birth" or pregnancy in other situations has been affected by repeated changes to the governing legislation. 8 The 1974 amendment to the original 1972 Act included as an eligible "personal injury by accident" any "medical misadventure". 9 This was taken to mean pregnancy resulting from a failed medical procedure, such as a failed sterilisation, could be covered. 10 As well, pregnancy was specifically included as "actual bodily harm" that could occur from a sexual crime, and so a woman who became pregnant following a sexual assault would have coverage under the Scheme. 11 The significant changes to the Scheme brought by the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992 were considered in case law to have removed coverage for pregnancy following medical misadventure 12 (although the majority of the judges in Allenby later doubted the 1992 statute either intended to remove coverage for pregnancy or had indeed done so). 13 The Corporation's position, as recorded in Allenby, is that after the 1992 changes, pregnancy following rape was also not covered but it would pay the costs of a termination in such a case, treating it as treatment for a "personal injury that is a mental injury" caused by a criminal act. 14 The 2001 Act is widely regarded as returning the Scheme to more generous coverage, generally, and specifically in regard to medical cases. The "fault" requirement of "medical error" was removed and replaced by cover for personal injuries "caused by treatment". 15 The claimants in Allenby and Cumberland sought coverage under the 2001 Act. The passage of other wrongful birth cases, 8 For more information on the case law and legislative changes, see Rosemary Tobin "Common Law Actions on the Margin"  NZ L Rev 37 at Accident Compensation Act 1972, s 2(1) definition of "personal injury by accident", as amended by the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 1974, s 2(1). 10 Although in a dissent in the Court of Appeal decision of L v M  2 NZLR 519 (CA) at 530, Cooke J (as he then was) doubted that such a medical misadventure would also amount to "personal injury", as it was medical misadventure for which the claimant was covered and the point was not decisively addressed. 11 Accident Compensation Act 1972, s 105B(1), inserted by the Accident Compensation Amendment Act 1974, s See Tobin, above n 8, at 49 for a summary. 13 Allenby, above n 3, at  per Elias CJ, at  and  per Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ. 14 At , by reference to s 21 of that Act. 15 Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 33.
4 528 (2014) 45 VUWLR particularly Allenby, through the courts is highly relevant to the decisions in Cumberland and so these are briefly summarised below. The Corporation's reviewer who allowed Ms C's claim had relied on the High Court decision of ACC v D in which Mallon J held that pregnancy following a failed sterilisation could be a personal injury. 16 Her Honour's decision was then overturned on appeal, the Court of Appeal declaring pregnancy was not a personal injury, 17 and this was relied on by the District Court and High Court to find in favour of the Corporation in Cumberland. However, after this, the Supreme Court gave its decision in Allenby, which, as the Court acknowledged in Cumberland, "expanded the arguments available to the appellant". 18 Allenby concerned a claim for coverage under the 2001 Act by a plaintiff who became pregnant following a failed sterilisation. The Supreme Court overturned earlier case law to hold that pregnancy that results from a failed sterilisation has cover under the 2001 Act. Indeed, two of the three judgments considered that it was also covered under the 1992 Act. 19 All judges agreed the pregnancy was a personal injury caused by medical error, as defined in s 26(1)(b) of the 2001 Act. Blanchard J (on behalf of McGrath and William Young JJ) and Tipping J held there was coverage as a medical misadventure under s 20(1)(b). 20 The Chief Justice wrote separately to address why she considered cover was also available for the pregnancy under s 20(2)(g) of the 2001 Act (as a gradual process injury consequent on the personal injury of impregnation) and s 20(2)(f) (as a gradual process injury caused by medical misadventure). 21 IV REASONING IN CUMBERLAND In Cumberland, the Court adopted the approach of Blanchard J in Allenby and reviewed whether Ms C met all three requirements of s 20(1) of the 2001 Act: 22 - the claimant suffered personal injury in New Zealand on or after 1 April 2002 (not at issue in this appeal); - the personal injury was any of the kinds of injuries described in s 26(1)(a),(b),(c) or (e); and 16 ACC v D (HC), above n 7. For analysis of the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments, see Yasmin Moinfar "Pregnancy Following Failed Sterilisation under the Accident Compensation Scheme" (2009) 40 VUWLR 805 at and ACC v D (CA), above n 7, at . 18 Cumberland, above n 1, at . 19 Allenby, above n 3, at  per Blanchard J, at  per Elias CJ. 20 At  per Blanchard J, at  per Tipping J. 21 At  and . 22 Cumberland, above n 1, at .
5 CASE COMMENT CUMBERLAND V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION the personal injury was described in any of the paragraphs in s 20(2). A Physical Injury of the Type Covered by the 2001 Act? Ms C argued that she had suffered a personal injury under s 26(1)(b), thus the issue, as framed by the Court of Appeal, was: 23 whether continuation of the pregnancy following the incorrect diagnosis and the consequential inability of the mother to implement her choice to terminate the pregnancy can constitute a physical injury suffered by the mother for the purpose of the definition of "personal injury". The Court found that it was, adopting the view of Blanchard J in Allenby that the term "personal injury" is used in an expansive way in the 2001 Act and, by analogy with conception as a physical consequence of rape or following a failed sterilisation treatment, the continued pregnancy of the appellant following the misdiagnosed scan was capable of being a personal injury. 24 In considering whether the continuing pregnancy was a personal injury, the Court emphasised that the focus must be the physical consequence to the appellant in the period after the misdiagnosis, namely the ongoing development of the foetus. The Court observed this consequence resulted in ongoing physical changes to the appellant, which, although part of a natural process, "cause discomfort and ultimately pain and suffering". 25 They agreed with Blanchard J that an analogy could be made with an undetected tumour (which could be eligible for coverage if a treatment injury). 26 In "belts and braces" reasoning, the Court of Appeal observed that the same result would occur if the Chief Justice's approach to physical injury in Allenby was applied; using a sprain or strain (which can be personal injuries) as comparators, the continuing pregnancy had a "profound impact", post-misdiagnosis, on the physiology of the appellant that constituted physical injury. 27 The Court acknowledged that Ms C's situation differed from that of the claimant in Allenby, but considered there to be "no convincing reason", based on the text and purpose of the 2001 Act, to treat the ongoing physiological changes of a post 20-week pregnancy, as being outside a "personal injury" under s At . 24 At . 25 At . 26 At  citing Allenby, above n 3, at . 27 Cumberland, above n 1, at . 28 At .
6 530 (2014) 45 VUWLR B Was There Treatment? And Did the Treatment Cause the Personal Injury? The last element to be met was whether Ms C had undergone "treatment" under the 2001 Act, which had caused the personal injury. First, the Court was comfortable that the misdiagnosis of the scan was caused by a treatment, because it came within s 33(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the non-exhaustive statutory list of possible treatments; that is, it related both to the diagnosis she received, to the decision on treatment to be provided, and to a failure to provide further treatment, for example, additional scans or tests, in a timely manner. 29 On the second issue, whether the personal injury was caused by the treatment, the uncontested evidence was that the claimant would have had the pregnancy terminated if she had been given the correct results of the scan. The Court discussed whether her loss of a chance to have a termination was sufficient causation or whether it was necessary to show on the balance of probabilities that she would have had an abortion. It adopted the latter approach, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Accident Compensation Corporation v Ambros (Ambros). 30 In Ambros, the Court considered a loss of a chance analysis would be incompatible with the Scheme, particularly in light of the changes to the statutory requirement for medical misadventure from "resulting from" to "caused by" in the 2001 Act. In Cumberland, the Corporation relied on expert medical evidence to argue the Court could not assume a termination would have been legally open to the claimant after a scan done at the 20 week stage, as s 187A(3) Crimes Act 1961 sets out a more much more limited test for abortions after 20 weeks. The Court considered further evidence was required on this issue and referred the case back to the District Court for this factual matter to be determined. It made a provisional finding in favour of Ms C on the case stated question, holding that she was entitled to coverage under s 20(2)(b) (medical misadventure) and s 20(2)(f) (a gradual process injury). There was no determination by the Court as to the appropriate scope of the claim, but the Court recorded the appellant's counsel's suggestion that it might include earnings-related compensation both in the short-term (including during pregnancy) and arguably beyond. 31 The child's claim was dealt with separately by the Corporation and not addressed in the judgment. 29 Cumberland, above n 1, at . 30 Accident Compensation Corporation v Ambros  NZCA 304,  1 NZLR 340 as cited by Cumberland, above n 1, at  . 31 Cumberland, above n 1, at .
7 CASE COMMENT CUMBERLAND V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION 531 V ANALYSIS The Court of Appeal in Cumberland was at pains to emphasise that its judgment was analogous with the Supreme Court's decision in Allenby. However, the Court's treatment of a "continuing pregnancy" extended the existing case law. The reasoning of the majority of the Supreme Court in Allenby referred to the claimant "becoming" pregnant, with the impregnation being the result of the medical misadventure, and the pregnancy a continuation of the injury analogous to a disease or infection. For example, Blanchard J said: 32 The development of the fetus following impregnation occurs because of the medical error, just as in the case of the undetected tumour. It causes significant physical changes to the woman's anatomy, which of course occur naturally but still cause discomfort and, at least ultimately, pain and suffering. If a disease or infection consequential on medical misadventure can be classified by the statute as a personal injury, it does not involve any greater stretching of language to similarly include a pregnancy which has the same cause. The Chief Justice's conclusion does separate impregnation and a continuing pregnancy in her consideration of coverage for the injury, stating: 33 A woman who becomes pregnant following a failed sterilisation suffers personal injury in the impregnation caused by medical misadventure within the cover provided by s 20(2)(b) and further personal injuries during the pregnancy "caused by a gradual process that is personal injury caused by medical misadventure" within the cover provided by s 20(2)(f)). One possible way to read the Allenby and Cumberland decisions consistently is to view the personal injury of the plaintiff as "a state". For example, following the Allenby approach, a claimant who becomes pregnant following a failed sterilisation is eligible for coverage because she now has the personal injury of being pregnant, a state involving pain and discomfort she had wished to avoid. 34 In the case of the injury of a "continuing pregnancy" as in Cumberland, the claimant was (presumably) prepared to be in the state of pregnancy, but not to be "pregnant with a foetus with spina bifida". The misdiagnosis has prevented the claimant from exercising her choice to obtain treatment to no longer be in this state. She is pregnant and does not know the foetus has spina bifida until the child is born. There is no evidence recorded in the Cumberland judgment that the physical 32 Allenby, above n 3, at  (emphasis added). See also  per Blanchard J. 33 Allenby, above n 3, at  (emphasis added). 34 This takes the case into the realm of personal choice and "autonomy": see Swati Jhaveri "Judicial Strategies in Recognising New Areas for Recovery in Negligence Lessons Learned from Wrongful Conception Cases" (2013) 21 Tort L Rev 63 at 67. In New Zealand, the issue of whether the effect of pregnancy itself is a personal injury was determined by the Supreme Court in Allenby, above n 3.
8 532 (2014) 45 VUWLR effects of the pregnancy or birth were greater or different for the mother because the foetus had spina bifida. Therefore, the physical injury that she suffers is, in one regard, the same, but the mother is in a state in which she does not wish to be. 35 This is similar to dealing with the misdiagnosis as a legal wrong to the detriment of the patient's autonomy to determine her health treatment, but fits within the confines of a personal injury covered by the 2001 Act. 36 Perhaps the Court of Appeal has skirted over this issue and not highlighted the difference between the impregnation and a continuing pregnancy as a recognition of reproductive rights. For example, in Allenby, Tipping J recognised the right of a woman to choose whether to become pregnant and stated: "If she does not wish to do so, the consequences of her becoming pregnant are not to be discounted because pregnancy per se is a natural process." 37 Perhaps underlying Cumberland is a recognition of the appellant's right to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy when correctly advised of the health of the foetus. The Court did recognise the claimant's decision must have been within the confines of New Zealand's abortion laws as it referred the case back to the District Court to determine whether the plaintiff, correctly advised, would have been legally able to access a termination. There is certainly no discussion in the judgment of "the blessing of a child", no comparison of raising a disabled child with a healthy child, and no use of the other value laden language that is so often a part of wrongful birth and wrongful life cases. 38 This is a welcome approach to such cases. The focus on the plaintiff's injury/state rather than "values" is perhaps helped by the Court in both Cumberland and Allenby dealing with the applicants' claim purely in the language of entitlement under the Scheme rather than looking to overseas case law. The overseas cases, working through these factual situations at the edges of existing tort law, have involved greater discussion of policy issues, although often by reference to "distributive justice" factors. This is despite the fact 35 Professor Todd has suggested that in a case where the parents themselves have decided to forgo their autonomy and have a child, but the child is born disabled, the defendant might be responsible for the disability costs, but not for any loss of autonomy: see Stephen Todd The Law of Torts in New Zealand (6th ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2013) at [6.9.04]. 36 There is also the common law example of Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust  1 AC 309 (HL) [Rees] where a disabled women had a child following a failed sterilisation. The majority of the House of Lords stated that the plaintiff's right to choose the way in which she lived had been invaded and for that legal wrong she was entitled to an award of damages. Rees has been criticised for creating a new head of damages in the law of damages: see for example Sandra Birgitta Elste "Analysis of Common Law Judgments in Regards of Wrongful Birth Cases" (4) New Zealand Postgraduate Law e-journal 1 at Allenby, above n 3, at . 38 In the leading English wrongful birth case of McFarlane v Tayside Health Board  2 AC 59 (HL) at 96 and respectively, Lord Millett said the birth of a child brought incalculable benefits to the parents and Lord Hope opined the birth of a child would always be a blessing.
9 CASE COMMENT CUMBERLAND V ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION 533 that in cases regarding the Scheme, courts do sometimes look to the common law to examine overseas developments, to the benefit of New Zealand law. 39 There had been some overseas cases regarding "continuing pregnancies" although these have generally addressed claims for expenses/damages for the child rather than the issue of personal injury to the mother, and/or were brought by the disabled child (ie wrongful life claims). 40 Whitehead v Searle 41 arose from a similar fact situation to Cumberland, a child born with undetected spina bifida. However, it was ultimately determined as a claim by the father for damages against solicitors for their delay in prosecuting the mother's claim against the health provider prior to her death. Laws LJ (with whom Rimer LJ agreed) briefly examined what could have happened had the claim been brought by the father against the health authority, and said that recovery would turn on evidence as to whether the mother would have terminated her pregnancy if she had known of the foetus' defect. The judges indicated the mother could have sought damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, and the additional costs of raising a disabled child. 42 VI CONCLUSION Cumberland establishes that the continuation of a pregnancy may be a personal injury for which a claimant may receive coverage under the Scheme. The claimant will, of course, still have to establish that the personal injury was caused by a treatment injury for which there is coverage under the 2001 Act. 39 Professor McLay argues that there is particular benefit in looking at common law developments indicating the need for change or growth, particularly in areas at the margins of tort law such as wrongful birth cases: Geoff McLay "Accident Compensation What's the Common Law Got to Do with It?"  NZ L Rev 55 at 62. He suggests that the overseas case law assisted Mallon J in ACC v D (HC), above n 7, at   to reach her conclusions about the coverage of pregnancy in the ACC scheme. 40 See for example, CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd  NSWSC 103 where the claimant sought damages in a negligence action alleging doctors had failed to diagnose her pregnancy. She claimed this had led to a "loss of opportunity" to terminate the pregnancy, and claimed damages for the pain and suffering of the pregnancy and birth, and for the economic loss of raising the child. The majority held she could not claim damages for the cost of raising her child as she had chosen not to adopt the child out at its birth, see Priestley J at  and Meagher JA at . 41 Whitehead v Searle  EWCA Civ 285,  1 WLR At  and  per Laws LJ, and   and  per Rimer LJ. The position regarding wrongful births in England is that the mother of a child born following a failed sterilisation can claim general damages for the pain and suffering of pregnancy and childbirth and associated expenses but not child-raising: see for example McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, above n A gloss was placed on this in Rees, above n 36, awarding damages in recognition of the "legal wrong" done to the plaintiff, rather than for the costs of raising a child. Further, where a child is born disabled, the courts have allowed for expenses specifically related to that disability: Parkinson v St James Seacroft University Hospital Trust  EWCA Civ 530,  QB 266. The leading Australian case of Cattanach v Melchoir (2003) 215 CLR 1 (HCA) upheld the claim of parents for the costs of raising an unplanned child following a failed sterilisation.
10 534 (2014) 45 VUWLR If the legislature disagrees with the outcomes of Allenby and Cumberland, it could respond by amending the legislation of the Scheme. Alternatively, if it agrees with eligibility in wrongful birth cases, it could make coverage of pregnancy (and the bounds of eligibility) explicit in the legislation. Associate Professor Rosemary Tobin has called for such statutory elaboration in order to act within the spirit of the Woodhouse Report, 43 without doing violence to the definitions in the existing legislation. 44 After all, some judges in the English and Australian cases have been clear that recovery for wrongful birth in tort law is, at its core, an issue of public policy. 45 In response to the leading Australian wrongful birth case of Cattanach v Melchoir, 46 Queensland (where the case originated) passed legislation limiting claimants' ability to recover common law damages in wrongful birth cases. 47 Until then, the courts will continue to develop case law on the Scheme in a piecemeal fashion, adding the weight of case law on to an already unwieldy and incoherent statute. 43 New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand (13 December 1967) [Woodhouse Report]. The Woodhouse Report, named for the chair, the Rt Hon Sir Owen Woodhouse, was set up to investigate complaints into New Zealand's then worker compensation scheme. It made recommendations that were the genesis for the introduction of the no-fault universal accidental injury scheme via the Accident Compensation Act Tobin, above n 8, at See for example: Rees, above n 36, at ; Lord Steyn's comments in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board, above n 38, at (although he denies his opinion is based on public policy factors); and the extensive discussion of the role of policy in such cases in Kirby J's decision in Cattanach v Melchoir, above n 42, at 49 and Cattanach v Melchoir, above n Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 49A and 49B. Similar provisions exist in New South Wales (Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 71) and South Australia (Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA), s 67), although these states provide specific exemptions for the additional costs arising where the child has a disability.
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT, HER CHILD OR ANY OF THE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS INVOLVED IN THE TREATMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND HER CHILD. IN THE COURT
805 PREGNANCY FOLLOWING FAILED STERILISATION UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION SCHEME Yasmin Moinfar * This paper analyses the approach that is taken in New Zealand in determining coverage for pregnancies
Accident Compensation: 40 Years On - A Celebration of the Woodhouse Report: Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand: Report of the Royal Commission on Inquiry Common Law Actions on the Margin Rosemary
JULIET BULL ENTITLEMENT TO COVER FOR CHRONIC PAIN SYNDROME UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION SCHEME Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2013 Table of Contents
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2012) Long term exposure to asbestos satisfies test for causation. Queensland
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2003-485-1921 BETWEEN VERONICA WEIR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2004 Appearances: J Miller & S A
2006 Forum: Rights and Responsibilities 233 RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN WRONGFUL BIRTH / WRONGFUL LIFE CASES DAVID HIRSCH I INTRODUCTION The parents of a child born as a consequence of medical negligence
53 NEW ZEALAND'S ACCIDENT COMPENSATION SCHEME AND CHRONIC PAIN SYNDROME Juliet Bull * Chronic pain syndrome does not currently constitute a physical injury under New Zealand's Accident Compensation scheme.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2010-485-001331 UNDER the Accident Compensation Act 2001 BETWEEN AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Appellant DOMINIQUE VANDY Respondent Hearing:
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA395/2014  NZCA 552 BETWEEN DIANE HAWKE Appellant ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent AND ACCLAIM OTAGO INC Applicant Intervener Hearing: 3 November
South Australia LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY) ACT 2001 An Act to reform the law relating to contributory negligence and the apportionment of liability; to amend the
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
ACC Basic Overview BACKGROUND The present Accident Compensation Act is called the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 Act is the fifth major Act in 28 years dealing with our No Fault
LIMITATION UPDATE 1. Recently, the Courts have been looking at three areas of limitation law and practice. One is when it is permissible to introduce a new claim in pending proceedings after the limitation
ANALYSIS OF COMMON LAW JUDGMENTS IN REGARDS OF WRONGFUL BIRTH CASES SANDRA BIRGITTA ELSTE* ABSTRACT: This article gives a detailed report about the changes in tort law concerning Wrongful Birth cases established
THE FIRTH V SUTTON DECISIONS Introduction In professional negligence proceedings against a solicitor, the court s aim is to determine what amount of money would put the plaintiff in the position he would
New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
Historical version: 18.12.2003 to 5.5.2004 Regulations disallowed South Australia Victims of Crime (Compensation) Regulations 2003 under the Victims of Crime Act 2001 Contents 1 Short title 2 Commencement
School of Accountancy Claims for Wrongful Pregnancy and Child Rearing Expenses C.M.Thomas Discussion Paper Series 213 September 2002 MASSEY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTANCY DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Editor:
Disclaimer In all cases solicitors must ensure that any agreement with a client is made in compliance with their professional duties, the requirements of the SRA and any statutory requirements depending
Women s Health Victoria Termination of Pregnancy Post 20 Weeks Background Paper March 2007 Prepared by Kerrilie Rice Policy and Research Officer Published by Level 1, 123 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria
MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE by Michael A. Jones B.A., LL.M., Ph.D., Solicitor of the Supreme Court Professor of Common Law ofth.e University of Liverpool Contributing Editor: - Muiris Lyons, LL.B., LL.M. Solicitor
Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained A Presentation for CLE Employment Law Conference 2013 Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver, BC May 9, 2013 Carman J. Overholt,
200 UNSW Law Journal Volume 29(2) THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BIRTH KRISTIN SAVELL I INTRODUCTION In two recent decisions, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal had occasion to consider the born-alive rule in
Review of parentage laws AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION SUBMISSION TO THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL 3 May 2013 ABN 47 996 232 602 Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001 General
WRONGFUL BIRTH, WRONGFUL CONCEPTION, AND THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 1. Introduction This paper examines the question of whether, based on the current legal situation, a claim for compensation in wrongful birth
24/03/2 The Queensland and South Australian Injury Scale Value (ISV) Schemes: a comparison Simon R Grant LLB LLM (QUT) Slide No.2 of 478 1 24/03/2 In the beginning Common Law Motor Accident Insurance Act
CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME: REVISED SCHEME AS ADOPTED BY THE STATES OF JERSEY 14th APRIL 2015 Published by the STATES GREFFE for the HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT Page - 2 CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
This is the author s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Stickley, Amanda P. (2011) The defence of joint illegal activity must be looked at in context.
NSW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION SUPPORTS LITIGATION FUNDING MARKET Introduction 1. The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a unanimous Judgment on Thursday 31 March 2005, sent some clear messages to legal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SYDNEY REGISTRY No. S416 of2011 10 BETWEEN: HIGH COURT OF AUSTP.ALIA FILED 2 0 JAN 2012 THE REGISTRY SYDNEY STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES Appellant and JAYSON WILLIAMSON Respondent
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jay Ebersole, Administrator of the : Estate of Stephanie Jo Ebersole, : Deceased : : v. : No. 1732 C.D. 2014 : Argued: February 9, 2015 Southeastern Pennsylvania
EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:
Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Cth) Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Inquiry into the
Williams v. University of Birmingham  EWCA Civ 1242 Court of Appeal, 28 October 2011 Summary In a mesothelioma claim, the defendant was not in breach of duty in relation to exposure to asbestos for
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE OHN DALY APPELLANT AND ALEXANDER THIERING & ORS RESPONDENTS Daly v Thiering  HCA 45 6 November 2013 S115/2013 ORDER 1. Appeal allowed.
Causation for nursing Abstract This article considers the application of the tests of factual and legal causation to cases of medical negligence. It is argued that in light of the recent development of
Erect Safe Scaffolding (Australia) Pty Limited v Sutton (6 June 2008) Introduction: Claims for accidents on building sites usually involve multiple parties. There are often contracts between the parties
Restoring the balance between individual rights, insurers and the community Recommendations for Reform Submission to the Victorian Competition & Efficiency Commission Inquiry into aspects of the Wrongs
Assessing Damages Under Section 151Z: An Interaction of Schemes Andrew Parker Barrister Henry Parkes Chambers Ty Hickey Barrister State Chambers 1 Calculating damages under s 151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation
SECOND READING SPEECH Limitation Amendment Bill 2013 Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Limitation Act 1974 to make it easier for a person suffering a latent disease to take action. The time limit within
Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES
PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants
Insurance and reinsurance litigation e-bulletin 27 October 2011 Supreme Court confirms that pleural plaques are actionable in Scotland In a decision which has important ramifications for the UK insurance
Tipp FM Legal Slot 29 th May 2012 Medical Negligence John M. Lynch, Principal Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests. Firstly, what is Medical
CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following
Avant Mutual Group Limited Submissions on Draft Report of the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission s Inquiry into Aspects of the Wrongs Act 1958 1. Key points and general comments Avant does
COMPULSORY - INSURANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES AGAINST THIRD PARTY CLAIMS Between 1936 and 1943 all States in Australia introduced legislation to compel owners of motor vehicles to insure against liability to
Concurrent and Proportionate Liability Patrick O Shea SC and Sue Brown 1. There have in the last 5 years or so been wide ranging statutory changes to the law affecting concurrent and proportionate liability.
- MCW In Focus Insurance Will changes to Queensland s workers compensation laws for psychiatric injuries stress out public liability respondents? Carl Moseling - Insurance Sunshine Coast - T 07 5352 9820
Greek/Australian International Legal and Medical Conference 2015 Monday, 1 June 2015 "Developments in the law relating to medical negligence in the last 30 years" The Hon Justice Susan Kiefel AC High Court
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
Legal Watch: Personal Injury 2nd July 2014 Issue: 025 Part 36 As can be seen from the case of Supergroup Plc v Justenough Software Corp Inc [Lawtel 30/06/2014] Part 36 is still the subject of varying interpretations.
THE SECOND HARBOUR TUNNEL A case study illustrating recent issues in construction insurance Andrea Martignoni, Partner Malcolm Stephens, Senior Associate Allens Arthur Robinson Insurance Forum: Wednesday
Proposals for Reform of Civil Litigation Funding and Costs in England and Wales Consultation Paper Response of JUSTICE February 2011 Q 1 Do you agree that CFA success fees should no longer be recoverable
 JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
Reform to Lost Years Damages in Mesothelioma Claims September 2008 Neil Fisher and Kevin Johnson John Pickering and Partners LLP Email: firstname.lastname@example.org 19 Castle Street Liverpool L2 4SX Tel: 0151
Mesothelioma Act 2014 CHAPTER 1 Explanatory Notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately 5.75 Mesothelioma Act 2014 CHAPTER 1 CONTENTS Diffuse Mesothelioma
Legal Research Record Summary of problem(s) Design and Dress Limited (DDL) has experienced problems due to the alleged harassment of one of their employees, Susie Baker, by another employee, Stephen Harding
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL Case Title: Brozinic v The Federal Capital Press Pty Limited trading as The Canberra Times Citation:  ACTCA 8 Hearing Date: 14 November
RETURN FORMS TO: Your Legal Representatives Or Criminal Injury Compensation Unit Department of Justice & Attorney-General GPO Box 149 BRISBANE QLD 4001 APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION 1 (Where there is no
Compensation to Relatives NSW Law Reform Commission Consultation Paper 14 Submission by Insurance Council of Australia Insurance Council of Australia Limited 14 June 2011 ABN: 50 005 617 318 Level 4, 56
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2011 ME 56 Docket: Han-10-526 Argued: April 12, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN, and JABAR,
ARE WE DOING ENOUGH TO PROTECT PROTECTED PARTIES? LESSONS FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS FROM THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN DUNHILL V BURGIN Introduction Policy arguments do not answer legal questions, said
: A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA
NEGLIGENCE BY DOCTORS AND OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS A GUIDE TO YOUR ENTITLEMENTS This guide includes the following: Adverse outcomes contrasted with negligent outcomes. What is negligence? If my treatment
Spinal Injuries INJURY & NEGLIGENCE SPECIALISTS Injury & Negligence My solicitors looked after me. They were reliable, friendly, always kept in touch and always made me feel valued. Joseph Burns (Manchester)
Research and Library Service 13 January 2010 Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill NIAR 644-10 This paper provides an overview and discussion of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) Bill. Paper
Third Party Costs Orders against Solicitors 1. This article discusses the rise in applications against solicitors for third party costs orders, where solicitors have acted on conditional fee agreements
1 WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL 2002 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE Objectives of the legislation To provide for miscellaneous amendments to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Reason for the Bill
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 82/2013  NZSC 41 BETWEEN AND ENVIRONMENT DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED Appellant THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON COMPANY LIMITED First Respondent SUSTAIN OUR SOUNDS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA148/2014  NZCA 126 BETWEEN AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Appellant COLIN JAMES DALLAS Respondent Court: Counsel: French, Winkelmann and Asher JJ D J Heaney QC
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
FORTY YEARS OF ACCIDENT COMPENSATION IN NEW ZEALAND THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL: KRINOCK LECTURE 2011 MONASH UNIVERSITY, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA STEPHEN TODD * INTRODUCTION In all common law jurisdictions
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 13/33469 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...