Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Health Professions - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.

 
Barker v General Medical Council (Reasons) [1971] UKPC 21
21 Jun 1971
PC

Commonwealth, Health Professions

[ Bailii ]

 
 Libman v The General Medical Council; PC 20-Oct-1971 - [1971] UKPC 1; [1971] UKPC 33; [1972] AC 217
 
Segall v General Medical Council [1971] UKPC 40
15 Dec 1971
PC

Health Professions
The Disciplinary Committee of The General Medical Council
[ Bailii ]
 
S v McC; W v W [1972] AC 24
1972
HL
Lord Hodson, Lord MacDermott, Lord Reid
Children, Torts - Other, Health Professions
The distinction between the court's 'custodial' and 'protective' jurisdictions was recognised. The case concerned the ordering of blood tests with a view to determining the paternity of a child involved in divorce proceedings. This was not a matter of upbringing in which the child's interests (which might well be prejudiced by a finding that he was illegitimate) were paramount. (Lord MacDermott) "The duty of the High Court as respects the welfare and affairs of infants falls into two broad categories. There is, first of all, the duty to protect the infant, particularly when engaged or involved in litigation. This duty is of a general nature and derives from the Court of Chancery and to some extent also, I believe, from the common law courts which were merged along with the Court of Chancery in the High Court of Justice by the Judicature Act 1873. It recognises that the infant, as one not sui juris may stand in need of aid. He must not be allowed to suffer because of his incapacity. But the aim is to ensure that he gets his rights rather than to place him above the law and make his rights superior to those of others. The Official Solicitor, however, relied on something more than the protective jurisdiction. He relied upon what is commonly referred to as the 'custodial jurisdiction' - the second of the broad categories which I have mentioned already. This is an aspect of the prerogative and paternal jurisdiction of the former Court of Chancery. It is derived mainly from the administrative functions of the Court of Chancery in which that court had to make a choice between conflicting claims as to the custody and upbringing of the infant or the management of his affairs, or to determine the course to be taken in such matters even when not in actual dispute." (Lord Hodson) "In custody cases the child's welfare is the governing consideration when all the relevant facts, claims and the wishes of the parents are taken into account. I am not persuaded that the position is the same where a paternity issue has to be tried. True that, as in all cases where infants are concerned, the court will see that the infant is protected. . . . The court in ordering a blood test in the case of an infant has, of course, a discretion and may make or refuse an order for a test in the exercise of its discretion, but the interests of persons other than the child are involved in ordinary litigation. The infant needs protection but that is no justification for making his rights superior to those of others."
(Reid) "But even if one accepts the view that in ordering, directing or permitting a blood test the court should not go further than a reasonable parent would go, surely a reasonable parent would have some regard to the general public interest and would not refuse a blood test unless he thought that would clearly be against the interests of the child." (Sir Thomas Bingham MR) ‘I would for my part accept without reservation that the decision of a devoted and responsible parent should be treated with respect. It should certainly not be disregarded or lightly set aside. But the role of the court is to exercise an independent and objective judgment. If that judgment is in accord with that of the devoted and responsible parent, well and good. If it is not, then it is the duty of the court, after giving due weight to the view of the devoted and responsible parent, to give effect to its own judgment. That is what it is there for. Its judgment may of course be wrong. So may that of the parent. But once the jurisdiction of the court is invoked its clear duty is to reach and express the best judgment it can.’
1 Citers


 
Dunning v United Liverpool Hospitals' Board of Governors [1973] 1 WLR 586; [1973] 2 All ER 454
1973
CA
James LJ, Lord Denning MR, Stamp LJ
Evidence, Health Professions
Mrs D had been treated at hospital, and sought release of her records to establish whether she had any basis for a claim in negligence. The court considered whether an application under section 31 of the 1970 Act for pre-action discovery had been properly made. Given the delay, the court was asked whether a claim was 'likely' to be made. Held. Whether the parties are likely to be parties in subsequent proceedings does not depend on the state of affairs prior to pre-action discovery. If one concentrates solely on things as they stand prior to pre-action discovery then it will often be impossible to say that anyone is likely to be a party to any subsequent proceedings.
Lord Denning MR said: "One of the objects of this section is to enable a plaintiff to find out – before he starts proceedings – whether he has a good cause of action or not". “likely” must be given its more extended and open meaning. A more restricted meaning would defeat the purpose of the statute.
James LJ said: "In order to take advantage of the section, the wording of which is no different from that of s 33(2) of the 1981 Act the applicant for relief must disclose the nature of the claim he intends to make and show not only the intention of making it but also that there is a reasonable basis for making it. Ill-founded, irresponsible and speculative allegations or allegations based merely on hope, would not provide a reasonable basis for an intended claim in subsequent proceedings."
Stamp LJ dissented, saying that the expert's opinion was that proceedings were unlikely, and disclosure was unlikely to produce anything to justify it.
Administration of Justice Act 1970 31
1 Citers


 
In re D (A Minor) (Wardship: Sterilisation) [1976] Fam 185
1976


Torts - Other, Health Professions

1 Citers



 
 Pountney v Griffiths; Regina v Bracknell Justices, Ex parte Griffiths; HL 1976 - [1976] AC 314

 
 Ziderman v General Dental Council; PC 1976 - [1976] 2 All ER 334; [1976] 1 WLR 330
 
Dubois v The General Dental Council [1979] UKPC 8
12 Mar 1979
PC

Health Professions
(The Disciplinary Committee of The General Dental Council)
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.