Keren-Paz, T (2018) Compensating injury to autonomy in English negligence law: Inconsistent recognition. Medical Law Review, 26 (4). pp. 585-609. ISSN 1464-3790

[thumbnail of T Keren Paz - Compensating injury to autonomy in English negligence law.pdf]
T Keren Paz - Compensating injury to autonomy in English negligence law.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.

Download (618kB) | Preview


Recently in Shaw v Kovac, the Court of Appeal seemed to have rejected a standalone injury to autonomy (ITA) as actionable in negligence, in an informed consent case. In this article, I argue that Shaw can be explained away, and that English law recognizes ITA as actionable in a series of cases, some of which—Bhamra, Tracey, and Yearworth—were not hitherto understood to do so. However, the under-theorization in the cases leads to inconsistencies. Like cases (Rees/Yearworth; Chester/Tracey) are not treated alike; ITA is misunderstood to be about ‘religious offence’ (Bhamra) and property loss (Yearworth) and worse still, the more serious type 2 ITA (Rees) gives rise to a weaker remedy (of exceptional nature aside) than the less serious type 1 injury (Chester). A better understanding of the different manifestations of ITA will lead to results which are both more consistent and more justified on the merit.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via OUP at Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Uncontrolled Keywords: actionable damage, autonomy, informed consent, negligence, reproductive autonomy
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
K Law > KD England and Wales
Divisions: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User: Symplectic
Date Deposited: 20 Feb 2018 10:27
Last Modified: 10 Apr 2020 01:30

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item