1/3
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Mcbain V State of Victoria - Key legilsation
Sex discrimination act 1984 (Cth)
Infertility treatment act 1995 (Vic)
Mcbain V State of Victoria 2000 - Facts
Mcbain an IVF specialist doctor had a patient Leesa Meldrum wished to concieve through IVF
Victorian Infertility tretament Act stated that to receive tretament a women must be married and living with her husband or in a defacto relatonship with a man
By denying Meldrum teh service Mcbain would be discriminating her on her marital status
Mcbain V State of Victoria 2000 - Legal issue and decision
Section 8 of the Victorian Act was inconsistent with section 22 of the commonwealth Act
Section 109 of the constitution was upheld and the latter prevailed to the extent of the inconsistency. The Victorian marital status requirement was inconsistent with the commonwealth
Mcbain V State of Victoria - Significance
Single and unmarried women in Victoria gained the legal right to access IVF services,
Upholds section 109s resolution to inconsistencies “latter shall prevail”
The States residual power over health and hospitals was restricted and declared invalid as it conflicted with a valid Commonwealth law (Sex Discrimination Act).
Led the Victorian Parliament to repeal the old Act and replace it with the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic) to reflect the Court's ruling.