In May 2026, the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered judgment in Brown v Islip & Anor [2026] QSC 92.
The case involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred when the plaintiff was a child. Although the plaintiff’s physical injuries resolved, the Court considered the ongoing effect of her psychological injury, including post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.
This case note provides a general summary of the decision and some practical points that may be taken from it.
What Was the Case About?
The plaintiff was eight years old when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on the Bruce Highway.
She was a front seat passenger in a vehicle driven by her grandfather. A motorhome driven by the first defendant veered into the path of the vehicle she was travelling in, causing a collision.
The second defendant was the compulsory third party insurer of the vehicle driven by the first defendant.
Liability was admitted. This meant the main dispute was not about who caused the collision, but about the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the amount of damages to be assessed.
The Main Issue
The central issue was the plaintiff’s psychological injury.
The defendants accepted that the accident caused some physical injuries and a psychological injury. The physical injuries had resolved.
The dispute concerned the extent of the plaintiff’s PTSD, including:
- Whether the PTSD had resolved or was in remission;
- Whether symptoms continued;
- How the condition affected the plaintiff’s schooling, work and daily life;
- Whether the condition would affect future employment;
- Whether future treatment was required; and
- Whether damages should be awarded for care and assistance.
What Evidence Did the Court Consider?
The Court considered evidence from the plaintiff, her mother and medical experts.
The plaintiff gave evidence about nightmares, flashbacks, difficulty with driving, distress around ambulances and sirens, and avoidance of situations that reminded her of the accident.
The Court also considered medical records, psychological treatment records, psychiatric opinions, school history, work history and evidence about the plaintiff’s functioning over time.
The Court accepted that the plaintiff had suffered PTSD as a result of the accident and that the condition continued to affect her from time to time.
PTSD and Fluctuating Symptoms
A useful feature of this decision is its discussion of fluctuating PTSD symptoms.
The Court accepted evidence that PTSD symptoms may vary over time. A person may function better during some periods than others, while still being affected by the condition.
The Court found that the plaintiff’s symptoms had affected her schooling, university studies, work and ability to function as a road user.
The Court also accepted that the plaintiff tried to avoid accident-related triggers, including emergency departments, sirens and circumstances that reminded her of the collision.
School, University and Work
The Court considered how the plaintiff’s psychological injury affected her education and employment.
The plaintiff had been able to continue school, but the Court accepted that her PTSD symptoms affected her later schooling.
She had also commenced university studies but did not continue with two courses because some of the course content reminded her of the accident.
The Court accepted that her future earning capacity was affected, although not to the extent submitted on her behalf. The Court was not persuaded that she had been deprived of the capacity to pursue tertiary education or professional employment altogether.
General Damages
The Court assessed the plaintiff’s dominant injury as a moderate mental disorder.
The plaintiff’s physical injuries were minor and had resolved. The psychiatric injury was the main injury considered for general damages.
Economic Loss
The Court awarded damages for both past economic loss and future economic loss.
Past economic loss was assessed by reference to unpaid leave taken while working at a hospital. The Court accepted that most of that unpaid leave was due to the effect of PTSD symptoms.
Future economic loss was assessed on the basis that the plaintiff’s earning capacity was diminished and that the reduction may produce financial loss in the future.
The Court accepted that fluctuations in PTSD symptoms were likely and could affect her earning capacity.
Care and Assistance
The Court awarded damages for past care.
The Court accepted evidence that the plaintiff’s mother and other family members had provided emotional support after the accident, particularly when the plaintiff was a child and experienced nightmares, sleep disturbance and distress.
The Court accepted that emotional support can be relevant in a psychological injury case where it is necessary and appropriate to assist a person to cope with the effects of the injury.
However, the Court did not award damages for future care. The Court was not satisfied that future care had been proved as necessary.
Future Treatment Expenses
The Court awarded damages for future expenses.
The Court accepted that the plaintiff’s PTSD symptoms fluctuated and sometimes affected her ability to work and function. The Court was satisfied there was a need for future psychological treatment.
Total Damages
The Court awarded damages under several categories, including:
- General damages;
- Past economic loss;
- Interest on past economic loss;
- Past loss of superannuation;
- Interest on past superannuation;
- Future economic loss;
- Future superannuation;
- Past care;
- Future expenses; and
- Special damages.
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the CTP insurer in the amount of $238,987.
Practical Takeaway
The key takeaway from this case is that psychological injuries may be assessed by looking at their practical effects over time.
A person may continue to work, study, travel or participate in ordinary activities, while still experiencing symptoms that affect their functioning. The Court considered the overall evidence, including the plaintiff’s own evidence, family evidence, medical records and expert opinions.
The case highlights the importance of evidence about:
- Symptoms over time;
- Medical and psychological treatment records;
- School and study history;
- Work history;
- Triggers and avoidance behaviours;
- The effect of symptoms on daily functioning;
- Future earning capacity;
- Care and support provided by family members; and
- Likely future treatment needs.
The case also shows that future economic loss in psychological injury matters may depend on whether symptoms are likely to affect employment choices, attendance, location of work, or the type of work a person can comfortably perform.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.