Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Paper
The ownership that wasn't meant to be: Yearworth and property rights in human tissue
  1. Luke David Rostill
  1. Correspondence to Luke David Rostill, Wadham College, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PN, UK; luke.rostill{at}law.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the English Court of Appeal's decision in Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust that six men had, for the purposes of their claims against the trust, ownership of the sperm they had produced. The case has been discussed by many commentators and most, if not all, of those who have discussed the case have claimed or assumed that the court held that the claimants had property rights in the sperm they had produced. In this paper, I advance an interpretation of the case that does not regard the court as deciding that the men had property rights (in the narrow sense of that term) in the sperm they had produced. On this view, the ‘ownership’ that the Court of Appeal purported to vest in each of the men was not a right in rem, a right ‘binding the world’. If this is so, it is perhaps unsurprising that some scholars, evaluating the success of the court's reasoning as a justification for vesting the claimants with property rights, have found it to be unsatisfactory.

  • Ownership
  • Rights
  • Tort Law
  • Allocation of Organs/Tissues
  • Law

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles