Re Farmer

The appeal was brought by the respondent, who was a witness to the unlawful killing of a friend. The respondent subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and sought compensation for economic loss. The case was determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the appeal being heard by a Full Court of three judges. The primary judge had previously dismissed the respondent's claim for economic loss, finding that the respondent's PTSD did not meet the criteria for compensation. The respondent appealed this decision, arguing that the primary judge had erred in his approach to the assessment of the respondent's claim.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's PTSD was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of witnessing the unlawful killing, and whether the respondent's economic loss was a result of the PTSD. The court needed to determine whether the respondent's PTSD was a direct result of witnessing the unlawful killing and whether it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the incident. The court also had to consider whether the respondent's economic loss was a result of the PTSD and whether it was a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful killing.

The Full Court found that the respondent's PTSD was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of witnessing the unlawful killing and that the respondent's economic loss was a result of the PTSD. The court held that the primary judge had erred in his approach to the assessment of the respondent's claim, as he had failed to consider the respondent's PTSD as a direct consequence of witnessing the unlawful killing. The Full Court found that the respondent's PTSD was a direct result of witnessing the unlawful killing and that it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the incident. The court held that the respondent's economic loss was a result of the PTSD and that it was a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful killing. The Full Court allowed the appeal and increased the award to the respondent.