Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorStewart, Cameron
dc.contributor.authorKim, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-17T01:01:37Z
dc.date.available2024-10-17T01:01:37Z
dc.date.issued2023en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/33169
dc.description.abstractThis section examines the recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Dean v Pope [2022] NSWCA 260. The decision settles a long-running dispute in New South Wales about the test for the standard of care under s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). That provision was introduced following the medical indemnity crisis of the early 2000s and provided for a modified Bolam test to protect professionals from claims in negligence when they had acted in accordance with a standard of "competent professional practice". In recent years there has been controversy regarding whether that section required the practice to be one already established to satisfy the section. This section examines the decision, how it fits into the history of the Ipp reforms and what it means for other jurisdictions in Australia.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherThomson Reutersen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Law and Medicineen
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden
dc.subjectnegligenceen
dc.subjectstandards of careen
dc.subjectCivil Liability Actsen
dc.titleThe standard of care test revisited: Competing approaches to defining competent profession practice in Australiaen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.subject.asrcANZSRC FoR code::48 LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES::4804 Law in context::480412 Medical and health lawen
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen
dc.rights.otherThis article was published by Thomson Reuters in the Journal of Law and Medicine and should be cited as Stewart, C., & Kim, P. (2023). The standard of care test revisited: Competing approaches to defining competent profession practice in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine, 30(2), 278–285. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auen
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law Schoolen
usyd.citation.volume30en
usyd.citation.spage278en
usyd.citation.epage285en
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.