Transport Accident Commission v Katanas

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Victorian Court of Appeal concerning the assessment of a "severe" mental disorder or disturbance for the purposes of bringing common law proceedings under a statutory compensation scheme. The appeal involved the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and the respondent, who had suffered a mental disorder following a motor vehicle accident. The central dispute revolved around whether the respondent's mental disorder met the statutory threshold of severity, particularly in light of her not requiring inpatient psychiatric treatment and her symptoms not being at the "upper echelon" of the range.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the severity of a mental disorder or disturbance should be assessed solely by reference to the extent of treatment received, and whether the "narrative test" as laid down in *Humphries v Poljak* had been correctly applied by the Court of Appeal. The narrative test involves a two-stage process: first, assessing the subjective seriousness of the injury's nature, symptoms, and consequences, and second, objectively determining its seriousness by comparing it to a spectrum of comparable cases.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, affirmed the principles of the narrative test. The Court reasoned that the severity of a mental disorder is not to be determined solely by the extent of treatment received. Instead, it requires a holistic assessment of the injury's nature, symptoms, and consequences. The Court noted that in cases of mental disorder, symptoms and consequences can often elide, meaning what might be considered a symptom can also be a consequence, and both are relevant to assessing severity. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the narrative test in its assessment of the respondent's condition.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.