[Peetwo]

For those interested here is a link for the Judgement - Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 566

And this was the summary:

15 May 2015
Casey v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd; Helm v Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd
[2015] NSWSC 566

Schmidt J

In November 2009, a plane which was supposed to transfer a seriously injured patient and her husband from Samoa to Melbourne crashed near Norfolk Island. The plane was operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd (the defendant in these proceedings), and had six people on board including a nurse, Ms Karen Casey and Dr David Helm (the plaintiffs).

It was common ground between the parties that Ms Casey and Dr Helm sustained physical injuries as a result of the crash, and that Ms Casey had also suffered serious psychological injuries. Pel-Air also accepted that the crash had been caused by the negligence of the plane’s pilots (for which it had vicarious liability) and, as such, there was no issue that their physical injuries were compensable under the Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959 (Cth).

In Ms Casey’s case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether some of her psychiatric injuries were compensable and also assess certain of the damages she claimed.

In terms of psychiatric injury, the central issue was whether Pt IA of the Civil Aviation Carriers Liability) Act, which refers to the 1999 Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, permitted Ms Casey to seek compensation in respect of her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Schmidt J held that, properly construed, s 9E of that Act did not provide any wider rights to compensation in respect of “personal injury” than the rights to compensation for “bodily injury” under Art 17 of the Montreal Convention. Though this was not the construction for which Ms Casey had argued, her Honour decided that Ms Casey’s PTSD was compensable because, like all her other injuries, it is a “bodily injury”.

The Court also found for Ms Casey on the damages she claimed, concluding that she is entitled, in accordance with the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), to recover various economic and non-economic losses.

In Dr Helm’s case, all that remained in issue was an assessment of certain of the damages he claimed. The Court found for Dr Helm, determining, inter alia, that he is entitled to payment for future economic losses up to a retirement age of 70 and for future care needs from ages 40 to 75.

MTF...P2