Supreme Court of South Australia
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of South Australia
Catchwords: Domestic Partner Declaration, Family Provision, Meaningful Relationship, Relationships, Succession
Judges: Burley J
Background: The plaintiff and K lived together in a sexual relationship from time to time over a period of about 38 years. Prior to meeting K, the plaintiff had two relationships with women, and had a child from each relationship. The plaintiff married three further times during the period he knew K. According to the plaintiff, he maintained a relationship with K throughout each marriage.
[Legal Issue]The plaintiff sought a declaration pursuant to the Family Relationships Act 1975 (FRA) that he and K were, on a given date, domestic partners and, if such a declaration was granted, an order for provision out of the estate of K.
[Court Orders]The court found there was a mutual friendship, including a sexual relationship, which manifested itself often from 1973 to 2011. The court also noted that the plaintiff looked after K when he was unwell.
In all the circumstances, the court found it was in the interests of justice to make a declaration that there existed between the plaintiff and K the required relationship entitling the plaintiff to make a claim out of K’s estate.
Catchwords: Domestic Partner Declaration, Family Provision, Meaningful Relationship, Relationships, Succession
Judges: Burley J
Background: The plaintiff and K lived together in a sexual relationship from time to time over a period of about 38 years. Prior to meeting K, the plaintiff had two relationships with women, and had a child from each relationship. The plaintiff married three further times during the period he knew K. According to the plaintiff, he maintained a relationship with K throughout each marriage.
[Legal Issue]The plaintiff sought a declaration pursuant to the Family Relationships Act 1975 (FRA) that he and K were, on a given date, domestic partners and, if such a declaration was granted, an order for provision out of the estate of K.
[Court Orders]The court found there was a mutual friendship, including a sexual relationship, which manifested itself often from 1973 to 2011. The court also noted that the plaintiff looked after K when he was unwell.
In all the circumstances, the court found it was in the interests of justice to make a declaration that there existed between the plaintiff and K the required relationship entitling the plaintiff to make a claim out of K’s estate.
Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of South Australia
Catchwords: Blood Transfusions, Cancer, Medical, Parens Patriae, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Religious Beliefs, Special Medical Procedure
Judges: White J
Background: A 10 year-old South Australian boy was suffering from an aggressive form of cancer that doctors feared would spread throughout his entire body if not treated with an intense 39-week regime of chemotherapy and surgery. The speed of that process would not have allow his blood cells time to regenerate, require blood transfusions so that the chemotherapy can continue to be effective. In a statement read to the court, the boy said transfusions carried spiritual consequences. "The doctors have told me I might die and I don't want to - but I don't want blood," he said. "The blood will change me... when you take blood, you are taking someone else's life. "I really don't want this and my heart is ripping apart." On May 10, doctors discovered a tumour in his left leg. The boy co
[Legal Issue]The hospital asked the Supreme Court of South Australia to invoke its power of parens patriae, allowing it to look after those incapable of looking after themselves, in order to rule on behalf of the child in this dilemma between religious beliefs and the very real risk of death if a blood transfusion was not permitted, despite the child's parents objections to the blood transfusion.
[Court Orders]In a South Australian legal first, the Supreme Court gave the Women's and Children's Hospital the right to give a 10-year-old boy - a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith - transfusions as part of his cancer treatment, despite the objections from the boy's family.
The decision, in line with similar rulings from around the world, paves the way for hospitals to take action in future debates with religious parents.
Catchwords: Blood Transfusions, Cancer, Medical, Parens Patriae, Parental Responsibility, Parental Rights, Religious Beliefs, Special Medical Procedure
Judges: White J
Background: A 10 year-old South Australian boy was suffering from an aggressive form of cancer that doctors feared would spread throughout his entire body if not treated with an intense 39-week regime of chemotherapy and surgery. The speed of that process would not have allow his blood cells time to regenerate, require blood transfusions so that the chemotherapy can continue to be effective. In a statement read to the court, the boy said transfusions carried spiritual consequences. "The doctors have told me I might die and I don't want to - but I don't want blood," he said. "The blood will change me... when you take blood, you are taking someone else's life. "I really don't want this and my heart is ripping apart." On May 10, doctors discovered a tumour in his left leg. The boy co
[Legal Issue]The hospital asked the Supreme Court of South Australia to invoke its power of parens patriae, allowing it to look after those incapable of looking after themselves, in order to rule on behalf of the child in this dilemma between religious beliefs and the very real risk of death if a blood transfusion was not permitted, despite the child's parents objections to the blood transfusion.
[Court Orders]In a South Australian legal first, the Supreme Court gave the Women's and Children's Hospital the right to give a 10-year-old boy - a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith - transfusions as part of his cancer treatment, despite the objections from the boy's family.
The decision, in line with similar rulings from around the world, paves the way for hospitals to take action in future debates with religious parents.