F v R

JurisdictionSouth Australia
CourtSupreme Court of South Australia
Year1983
Date1983

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
24 cases
2 firm's commentaries
  • Right of parents to plan their reproductive future
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 29 January 2016
    ...for a detailed discussion 5[1992] HCA 58 6These duties were discussed in Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58 at 483 and 490, and in F v R (1983) 33 SASR 189 at 192 7[2003] HCA 38 8[1992] HCA 58 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist ......
  • Failure to warn: Monument v Baker
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 18 November 2011
    ...of care of a surgeon, the court relied on the established principles from Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 as well as F v R (1983) 33 SASR 189. Those cases provide that a medical practitioner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in the provision of professional advice and t......
1 books & journal articles
  • Edwards v Blomeley; Harriton v Stephens; Waller v James: wrongful life actions in Australia.
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 26 No. 3, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...and Kirby JJ). (75) [2000] 2 AC 59; see the discussion above Part III(A). (76) See, eg, F v R (1982) 29 SASR 437 (Mohr J); aff'd (1983) 33 SASR 189; Petrunic v Barnes [1988] Aust Torts Reports [paragraph] 80-147; Bannerman v Mills [1991] Aust Torts Reports [paragraph] 81-079; Kambouroglou v......