What happened
In January 2012, the defendant turned across the plaintiff's path and struck her car; negligent driving was admitted. There was evidence of anxiety and other symptoms before the collision, followed by depression, concentration difficulties and accident-related post-traumatic stress symptoms. As a severe psychotic illness developed, the dispute concerned how much of the resulting incapacity was attributable to the accident.
The issues
The court considered factual causation and scope of liability under s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002. It then had to distinguish losses caused by bringing forward a disabling illness from losses that would have occurred anyway, including whether continuing treatment should be treated differently from future earnings.
The court's decision
Accident-related post-traumatic stress symptoms and aggravated anxiety contributed to the overall illness. The court found four years of acceleration: a disabling illness would have destroyed earning capacity by February 2016 even without the collision, so earnings loss was allowed only up to that point and no future earnings award was made. Continuing treatment attracted a heavily discounted allowance, and the judgment sum was ordered into court pending appointment of an estate manager.
Understanding the figures
The historical 2021 judgment comprised AUD 3,547.70 for past expenses, AUD 8,000.00 for future expenses and AUD 32,436.00 for past loss of earning capacity: AUD 43,983.70 in total. The future-expense allowance reflected an 80% discount to a buffer of AUD 40,000. There was no contributory-negligence reduction; costs were separate and the sum was payable into court rather than directly to the plaintiff.
What this case shows
The decision separates proof that an accident contributed to psychiatric injury from valuation of the loss it caused. Rather than insist on one definitive diagnosis, the court examined the course and interaction of symptoms, then accounted for the disabling illness that would have developed independently.
Why another case may differ
This was a historical damages claim arising from a 2012 accident, with the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 forming part of its context. The acceleration period and treatment discount depended on this medical history and expert evidence. Non-economic loss was not claimed and the future paid-care claim was not pressed, so the judgment does not value every consequence of the plaintiff's disability.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →