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
|
| _version_ | 1797108611100442624 |
|---|---|
| author | Hafeez-Baig, MJ English, J |
| author_facet | Hafeez-Baig, MJ English, J |
| author_sort | Hafeez-Baig, MJ |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:29:46Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:0425de05-bcc2-4597-bf3e-255ef3a89890 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T07:29:46Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| publisher | Thomson Reuters |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:0425de05-bcc2-4597-bf3e-255ef3a898902023-01-18T17:37:58ZRethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:0425de05-bcc2-4597-bf3e-255ef3a89890EnglishSymplectic ElementsThomson Reuters2017Hafeez-Baig, MJEnglish, JCanadian 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. |
| spellingShingle | Hafeez-Baig, MJ English, J Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title | Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title_full | Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title_fullStr | Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title_short | Rethinking the requirement for a ‘recognisable psychiatric illness' in the law of negligence |
| title_sort | rethinking the requirement for a recognisable psychiatric illness in the law of negligence |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hafeezbaigmj rethinkingtherequirementforarecognisablepsychiatricillnessinthelawofnegligence AT englishj rethinkingtherequirementforarecognisablepsychiatricillnessinthelawofnegligence |