Peterson v Commonwealth of Australia

The case of Peterson v Commonwealth of Australia involved the aftermath of the tragic collision between the HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Voyager in 1964. The plaintiff, Peterson, sought damages for injuries sustained during the collision, including claims for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff could recover damages for PTSD under the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), and whether the experts' reliance on the DSM 4 definition of PTSD was appropriate. The Commonwealth, as the defendant, argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the limitation period, and that the definition of PTSD used by the plaintiff's experts was not applicable to the circumstances of the case.

The court was required to address several key legal issues. The primary issue was whether the plaintiff's PTSD claim was subject to the three-year limitation period under section 5(1A) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). The court also had to consider whether the DSM 4 definition of PTSD was an appropriate basis for the plaintiff's claim, given that the collision occurred prior to the publication of the DSM 4. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the collision and the PTSD.

The court found that the three-year limitation period under section 5(1A) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) did not apply to the plaintiff's PTSD claim, as PTSD was not recognised as a distinct psychiatric illness at the time of the collision. The court held that the plaintiff's claim was subject to the general six-year limitation period under section 5(1) of the Act. The court also accepted that the DSM 4 definition of PTSD was an appropriate basis for the plaintiff's claim, as it was a widely accepted and authoritative source for the diagnosis of mental disorders. The court found that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the collision and the PTSD, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the injuries sustained.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim for damages for PTSD be allowed, and that the Commonwealth pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.