What happened

After her child's death following birth in 2007, the claimant experienced psychiatric symptoms and difficulty at work. She later worked part time in banking and completed further study, while remaining vulnerable to stress. The defendant admitted liability and a recognised psychiatric injury, leaving quantum in dispute.

The issues

The court examined what work the claimant would probably have undertaken while raising children without the injury, and how to value lost career opportunities. It also distinguished additional domestic assistance caused by the injury from ordinary sharing of family responsibilities.

The court's decision

The court accepted significant psychiatric harm and reduced earning opportunities, but did not accept the proposed assumption of continuous full-time work. It awarded a lump sum for future economic loss and confined gratuitous domestic assistance to the first six months. Judgment and an ordinary costs order favoured the claimant, subject to an application for a different costs order.

Understanding the figures

Judgment was for AUD 366,903.60, including AUD 214,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 70,000 for future economic loss including superannuation, and AUD 6,000 interest on past earnings loss. Costs were separate. The future economic allowance was a lump sum, not a finding of a uniform weekly shortfall.

What this case shows

Psychiatric damages required attention to actual work, treatment prospects and family circumstances. Sincere evidence about intended future work did not make that counterfactual certain. The case illustrates a lump-sum assessment where future loss was established but its timing and extent could not be calculated reliably.

Why another case may differ

Because liability and psychiatric injury were admitted, this was not a fresh determination of the requirements for medical negligence or psychiatric injury liability. Findings about care and work were specific to this evidence, rather than a general presumption about parents' employment. The monetary assessment and non-economic-loss valuation are historical to 2013.

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? →