LB v YD 2009 5 SA 463 (T) / YD v LB (A) 2009 5 SA 479 (NGP)

Show simple item record Nicholson, C.M.A. (Caroline Margaret Anne), 1960- 2011-03-08T06:55:30Z 2011-03-08T06:55:30Z 2010
dc.description.abstract When LB v YD (2009 5 SA 463 (T)) was heard by the High Court, an opportunity presented itself for the Court to adjudicate once and for all on the thorny issue of compelling for DNA testing. In ruling on the matter, Murphy J gave an insightful and eloquent judgment, (Heaton J “October to December Persons” 2009 (4) JQR par 2.1 disagrees with this assessment) however, his failure in YD v LB (A) (2009 5 SA 479 (NGP)) to grant leave to appeal, no matter how well founded his decision, deprived South Africans of increased legal certainty on the matter. (Heaton agrees with this statement.) In this note an attempt will be made to highlight a number of important aspects of the case and to explain why leave to appeal should have been granted in YD v LB (A) (supra). en
dc.identifier.citation Nicholson, CMA 2010, 'LB v YD 2009 5 SA 463 (T) / YD v LB (A) 2009 5 SA 479 (NGP)', De Jure, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 409-417. [] en
dc.identifier.issn 1466-3597
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher LexisNexis en_US
dc.rights LexisNexis en_US
dc.subject Disputed paternity en
dc.subject Blood tests en
dc.subject Court as upper guardian en
dc.subject Compel blood tests for DNA testing en
dc.subject Best interests of the child en
dc.subject.lcsh Parent and child (Law) en
dc.subject.lcsh Guardian and ward en
dc.subject.lcsh Blood -- Analysis en
dc.title LB v YD 2009 5 SA 463 (T) / YD v LB (A) 2009 5 SA 479 (NGP) en
dc.type Article en

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record