LB v YD 2009 5 SA 463 (T) / YD v LB (A) 2009 5 SA 479 (NGP)
| dc.contributor.author | Nicholson, C.M.A. (Caroline Margaret Anne), 1960- | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-03-08T06:55:30Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-03-08T06:55:30Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 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. [www.lexisnexis.co.za] | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1466-3597 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2263/15991 | |
| 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 |