Add to ORKGThis article considers possible liability issues associated with mental health professionals in light of a recent High Court decision which takes a very narrow view on the extent to which mental health professionals could be found liable in negligence. It considers this approach to be unduly narrow, based on a misreading of the relevant legislation finding there to be an inconsistency of obligations more apparent than real. Fears of indeterminate liability in this space have not materialised in jurisdictions in which a broader view of liability in this context has been taken
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...
It has long been accepted that if a claimant develops mental illness as a consequence of physical in...
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...
This paper considers the liability of mental health providers in light of the High Court's recent de...
Since liability for psychiatric injury was first recognised, it has been evident that the extent of ...
An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objecti...
An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objecti...
When should liability be imposed upon those who fail to prevent injury or ring the alarm bell? This ...
At common law, liability in negligence is based generally on an objective standard ofreasonable care...
In Australia, the reduced mental capacity which is characteristic of children alters the standard of...
The article reviews the clinical and legal obligations faced by those with responsibility for the cl...
In Australia, both common and statutory law allows compensation for negligently occasioned recognise...
This article seeks to summarise the movement towards an increased likelihood of branches of the stat...
This Article considers the issues associated with emerging professional liability claims against men...
Despite the enactment of civil legislation affecting claims for pure mental harm in many jurisdictio...
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...
It has long been accepted that if a claimant develops mental illness as a consequence of physical in...
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...
This paper considers the liability of mental health providers in light of the High Court's recent de...
Since liability for psychiatric injury was first recognised, it has been evident that the extent of ...
An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objecti...
An essential element of the tort of negligence is the duty of care, which is measured by the objecti...
When should liability be imposed upon those who fail to prevent injury or ring the alarm bell? This ...
At common law, liability in negligence is based generally on an objective standard ofreasonable care...
In Australia, the reduced mental capacity which is characteristic of children alters the standard of...
The article reviews the clinical and legal obligations faced by those with responsibility for the cl...
In Australia, both common and statutory law allows compensation for negligently occasioned recognise...
This article seeks to summarise the movement towards an increased likelihood of branches of the stat...
This Article considers the issues associated with emerging professional liability claims against men...
Despite the enactment of civil legislation affecting claims for pure mental harm in many jurisdictio...
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...
It has long been accepted that if a claimant develops mental illness as a consequence of physical in...
In the common law jurisdictions including Malaysia, the tort of negligence is based on the existence...