Transport Accident Commission v Katanas [2017] HCA 32: Serious Injury Test

Friday 18 August 2017 @ 12.11 p.m. | Legal Research

The High Court has handed down its decision in Transport Accident Commission v Katanas [2017] HCA 32. The High Court dismissed an appeal from the Transport Accident Commission concerning the narrative test of serious injury under section 93(17) of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (VIC).

The Narrative Test

The narrative test as laid down in Humphries v Poljak [1992] 2 VR 129 serves as an alternative to the quantitative test. The test, unlike the quantitative test, does not rely on a percentage score for bodily injuries but instead relies on an assessment of the effect of the injury on the person’s quality of life. A series of criteria must be taken into account when relying on the test such as a serious permanent loss of bodily function, severe permanent behavioural or mental disturbance, and permanent disfigurement.

Background to Appeal

The respondent was originally involved in a motor vehicle accident in July 2010. As a result of the accident, she suffered a range of psychological symptoms that has caused her life great distress. Her symptoms include lowered mood, nightmares, daytime thoughts of the accident, as well as difficulty in concentration and social pursuits. In 2013, she began receiving psychological treatment in the form of visits to a psychiatrist and the taking of anti-depressants. Medical evidence indicated that the respondent had suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder and either a major depressive disorder or an adjustment disorder which was substantially related to the accident.

Judicial Proceedings

The respondent applied to the County Court of Victoria seeking leave to commence a common law proceeding for serious injuries under the Transport Accident Act. The primary judge held that despite her condition receiving considerable treatment and medication, there was no evidence that any point, she was an inpatient in a psychiatric institution "nor suffered the more extreme symptoms of psychological trauma".

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal overturned the primary judge’s verdict and held that while the extent of treatment is certainly a factor in deciding the severity of her condition, it was not the only factor. The Court held that the primary judge had erred in assessing the severity of her disorder by conceiving severity only in terms of the extent of treatment. The appellant appealed the matter to the High Court on the ground that the majority of the Court of Appeal displaced the part of the narrative test from Humphries v Poljak concerning the evaluation of the instant case against the range or spectrum of comparable cases.

High Court Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the Court of Appeal had not erred in ruling that the primary judge had failed to consider the full range of factors that could affect his conception of severity in this instance. The majority of the Court of Appeal rightly emphasised that, in assessing severity by comparison to the range of comparable cases, a judge must identify and bring to account all of the relevant factors. As a result, the High Court held that the Court of Appeal had not depart from the narrative test. 

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.

Sources:

Related Articles: