Wrongful Birth Claim in Japan

2002 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuo Sakaihara

Wrongful birth claim is generally defined as a claim by the parents of a child born alive but with a disability that a doctor was negligent in permitting the pregnancy to continue to birth. There have been four cases relating to congenital rubella syndrome and one case relating to Down's syndrome held in Japan. The claims brought by the mothers were that, but for the negligence of the doctor in managing the pregnancy, the mother would have had a lawful abortion and the child would not have been born to suffer a disability. As we do not have the provision of foetal indication for abortion in Japan, wrongful birth claim by parents is founded upon a breach of doctors' duty in advising of the probability of a disabled child. We compare the lawful nature of wrongful birth claims in Japan with those in the United States and the United Kingdom.

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Rehana Cassim

Abstract Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 empowers courts to declare directors delinquent and hence to disqualify them from office. This article compares the judicial disqualification of directors under this section with the equivalent provisions in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America, which have all influenced the South African act. The article compares the classes of persons who have locus standi to apply to court to disqualify a director from holding office, as well as the grounds for the judicial disqualification of a director, the duration of the disqualification, the application of a prescription period and the discretion conferred on courts to disqualify directors from office. It contends that, in empowering courts to disqualify directors from holding office, section 162 of the South African Companies Act goes too far in certain respects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document