Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence
Canadian Supreme Court decision in Saadati v Moorhead – removal of requirement that the claimant prove a "recognisable psychiatric illness" in a case of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury – law in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand – argument that rather than removing the...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Thomson Reuters
2017
|
| Summary: | Canadian Supreme Court decision in Saadati v Moorhead – removal of requirement that the claimant prove a "recognisable psychiatric illness" in a case of negligently inflicted psychiatric injury – law in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand – argument that rather than removing the "recognisable psychiatric illness" requirement, the interpretation and application of the requirement should be clarified - a "recognisable psychiatric illness" should not be limited to mental disorders that are recognised in classificatory schemes. |
|---|