Feminist legal scholars have discussed the impact of gender and class stereotypes on the judgments in Louth v Diprose. However, a significant aspect of Ms Louth’s identity is missing from these discussions: her neurodivergence (or mental illness). This article analyses the stereotypical treatment of women through the lenses of gender and neurodivergence in ‘clouded judgment’ unconscionability cases. This analysis is focused on the comparison of the use of stereotypes in Louth v Diprose and Williams v Maalouf. Each case allows vastly different outcomes for the neurodivergent female parties, but both cases reinforce prejudicial stereotypes. The article concludes with a discussion of how a myopic focus on a singular category of identity can hinder the creation of decisions that are more mindful of intersectional realities.
Murphy, Brooke, Neurodivergent women in ‘clouded judgment’ unconscionability cases – an intersectional feminist perspective, Adelaide Law Review, Volume 39 Issue 1 (2018).