Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:36:00 +1300

From: Allan Beever

Subject: Mitigation by adoption

To me at least, Gaudron J’s comment (at least as I understand it) seems to miss the point. The issue is not that the plaintiffs should give the child up for adoption. That would be cruel and no one is saying that or disputing the plaintiffs’ entitlement to keep the child. Rather, it is that, if they choose to keep the child, can they rightly say that the child is a loss. That is, can they claim from the defendant if they keep the child?

Allan

On 10/12/2003 2:27 PM, "Harold Luntz" wrote:

Another feminist view (from the transcript of argument in the High Court of Australia in Nafte v CES & Ors S91/1996 (11 September 1996)?

GAUDRON J: That would be about the cruelest and most inhumane submission I have heard put in this Court since I have been here. I must say, it took my breath away when I read the judgments below suggesting that that was a proper form of mitigation.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>