Author(s): Moses LB, Gollan N
Abstract Share this page
Abstract This article examines the definitions of "property" offered by the majority of the High Court of Australia in the case of Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351, which involved a statute giving the Crown "property" in fauna. It argues that the majority judges in that case endorsed a flexible or "thin" conception of property that is consistent with recognition of property in "things" such as excised human tissue and in vitro human embryos, despite the many differences between such "things" and ordinary chattels. A similar flexible conception of property was also an important factor in the United Kingdom case of Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust QB 1.
This article was published in J Law Med
and referenced in Journal of Civil & Legal Sciences