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 "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.
- Publication status:
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
(Submitted manuscript under review, pdf, 228.3KB)
- Thomson Reuters Publisher's website
- Tort Law Review Journal website
- Publication date:
- Pubs id:
- Local pid:
- Deposit date:
- Copyright date:
- This is the submitted manuscript version of the article. The final version is available from the publisher.
Views and Downloads
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record