17 Feb 2014
Because the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and directed that the Committee was entitled to costs in the High Court and the parties had not agreed those costs, the High Court fixed costs against the Applicant in favour of the Respondent in the amounts claimed in the respondent's memorandum, the Applicant having made no further submissions on quantum.
9 Aug 2012
The Supreme Court (majority) held that the Abortion Supervisory Committee's statutory role is one of general oversight: it may require anonymised reports and make generalised inquiries into consultants' caseloads and practices to ensure consistent administration and to report to Parliament, but it may not investigate or review the clinical decision‑making in individual cases or call into question the lawfulness of particular authorisations; s 36 supports generalised but not case‑specific intrusive inquiries (while a minority held the Committee may, when reasonably necessary, seek information…
1 Jun 2011
The Court of Appeal held that the CSA Act empowers the Abortion Supervisory Committee to perform general, systemic oversight and to require and analyse anonymised data and reports, but does not empower the Committee to review or scrutinise individual certifying consultants' clinical decisions or to form its own determinations about the lawfulness of particular abortion authorisations (absent bad faith); Wall v Livingston remains authoritative that individual medical judgments are for certifying consultants and are not subject to after‑the‑fact Committee review; the CSA Act does not create an…
3 Oct 2007
At interlocutory stage the two paediatricians' affidavits were not struck out because they are neutral, descriptive expert evidence about current medical practice that is not plainly irrelevant or collateral to the judicial review; relevance not disproved and potential opinion status can be addressed later.