A nervous shock personal injury claim lets you seek compensation for a diagnosed psychiatric illness caused by someone else’s negligence. It’s not about feeling upset after an accident. It’s about a recognised condition (PTSD, major depression, anxiety disorder) that a psychiatrist can formally diagnose and link to a specific event.
A June 2025 Supreme Court decision, Lundbergs v Fu & Anor [2025] QSC 135, made this distinction painfully clear. The plaintiff’s family was in a minor rear-end collision, nobody was physically hurt, and the court ruled the at-fault driver didn’t owe the plaintiff a duty of care for psychiatric injury. The claim failed.
That ruling matters if you’re in Western Australia, too. While the basic principles of personal injury apply across jurisdictions, nervous shock claims face intense scrutiny. This article won’t cover workers’ compensation psychological claims or employment contract breaches. We’re focused on nervous shock claims after a negligent act by a third party.
Background Facts of the Lundbergs Case
The plaintiff’s partner and three children were in her car when another vehicle rear-ended them. Minor collision. No physical injuries. The at-fault driver accepted full responsibility.
The plaintiff wasn’t there. She was at work and received three phone calls: one from her daughter about the accident, one from an ambulance officer saying everyone was uninjured, and a third saying one daughter was hyperventilating and being taken to the hospital as a precaution. By the time the plaintiff arrived at the hospital, her daughter had recovered and needed no treatment. The family’s GP confirmed the next day that nobody sustained physical injuries, though family members later developed psychiatric conditions.
The plaintiff claimed she developed a psychiatric injury (or that the accident worsened a pre-existing condition) from the phone calls, the hospital visit, and helping her family through post-accident counselling.
What Makes a Nervous Shock Claim Valid in Australia?
To succeed with a nervous shock personal injury claim, you need to prove three things:
- You suffered a recognised psychiatric illness caused by the defendant’s negligence.
- The defendant owed you a duty of care to prevent that type of injury.
- The injury was reasonably foreseeable.
That third element is where most claims die. The common law claim process treats nervous shock differently from physical injuries. A broken arm from a car crash is obviously foreseeable. A psychiatric injury to someone who wasn’t at the scene and learned about a minor accident by phone? Much harder to prove.
In Western Australia, the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) addresses mental harm in Part 1B. WA’s provisions are less restrictive than those of NSW or Victoria. The Act requires the harm be a recognised psychiatric illness and that a person of “normal fortitude” might have suffered it in the same circumstances. Unlike NSW, WA doesn’t strictly require you to have witnessed the event at the scene.
That sounds like a lower bar. In practice, it’s still steep. The Insurance Council of Australia’s October 2025 civil liability report found psychological injury claims cost roughly four times what physical injury claims cost. Insurers fight them hard.
What Did the Court Have to Decide?
Three questions. Did the driver owe the plaintiff a duty of care? Were the injuries reasonably foreseeable? And what actually caused the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition?
The defendants accepted they owed a duty of care to people who might foreseeably suffer psychiatric injury from the collision. Their argument was narrower: a reasonable person wouldn’t have foreseen that this plaintiff would develop a recognised psychiatric illness from hearing about a minor accident where nobody was hurt.
How Did Duty of Care and Foreseeability Play Out?
The court said the severity of the accident and its potential consequences are “critically important” to foreseeability. That means the court looks at the actual event, not just your relationship to the person involved.
The question became: should the driver have foreseen that his negligence might cause the plaintiff a recognised psychiatric illness from being told her family was in a minor accident with no physical injuries? The court said no.
Here’s my contrarian take. The industry tends to frame nervous shock claims as primarily about proximity and relationship. But this case shows that foreseeability is doing the heavy lifting. The plaintiff was the partner and mother of those in the crash. She ticks the relationship box. What killed her claim was the severity of the accident, not her connection to the victims.
If you’re dealing with motor vehicle injuries and considering a nervous shock claim as a secondary claimant, accident severity should be your first filter.
Did the Plaintiff’s Pre-Existing Conditions Matter?
Yes. Significantly.
The court accepted she had other stressors before and after the accident. While it found she did have a recognised psychiatric illness, the court concluded that accumulated life pressures caused it, not the accident.
Pre-existing mental health conditions don’t automatically disqualify you. But they give defendants a powerful argument. Australian data from WTW and SafeWork Australia shows the average workers’ compensation psychological claim now exceeds $260,000, which tells you how aggressively causation gets contested.
Actually, the better way to think about this is from an evidence standpoint. If you already have anxiety or depression, you need a forensic psychiatrist’s report early. Not six months later. Early assessment is the single biggest factor separating claims that settle from claims that get dismissed. I’ve seen delays of even a few months cost people their entire claim.
What Was the Court’s Final Ruling?
The defendant was found not liable. Judgment went to the defendants on two independent grounds: the psychiatric injury wasn’t reasonably foreseeable given the minor nature of the accident, and the plaintiff’s condition was caused by accumulated life stressors.
What Does This Ruling Mean for Your Nervous Shock Claim in 2026?
The plaintiff lost, but the decision gives future claimants a clearer roadmap.
Accident severity matters enormously. A serious collision with hospitalisations or a fatality creates a far stronger foreseeability argument than a minor rear-ender. Early psychiatric evidence is non-negotiable. Without a formal psychiatrist’s diagnosis linking your condition to the event, you’re handing the other side room to blame pre-existing stressors.
Your relationship to the victim still matters, but it’s not enough alone. Being a spouse or parent gets you through one gate. Foreseeability is a separate gate entirely.
If you’re in Western Australia, the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) gives you slightly more room than claimants in NSW or Victoria. But “slightly more room” still means you need strong evidence and a clear causal link. Getting proper guidance from a team that understands your situation early isn’t optional.
The law around nervous shock personal injury claims is still shaped by individual court decisions. Each new ruling shifts the boundaries. Building your evidence around those shifts is how you give your claim the strongest possible chance.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much compensation can you get for a nervous shock claim in Australia?
It depends on severity. Minor nervous shock claims in Australia typically settle between $20,000 and $80,000. Moderate cases with ongoing treatment needs range from $80,000 to $250,000. Severe cases involving permanent psychiatric disability can exceed $250,000 to $600,000 or more. These figures come from 2025 estimates across multiple Australian law firm datasets and the Insurance Council of Australia’s civil liability report.
Can you make a nervous shock personal injury claim if you weren’t at the accident scene?
Yes, in some cases. In Western Australia, the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) is also less restrictive than NSW on this point. But not being at the scene makes proving foreseeability harder. The Lundbergs v Fu case in 2025 showed that learning about a minor accident by phone wasn’t enough to establish the defendant’s duty of care.
Do you need a psychiatrist to prove a nervous shock claim?
You need a diagnosis of a recognised psychiatric illness from a qualified mental health professional. A GP can refer you, but a formal psychiatric assessment carries far more weight in court. Getting this assessment early (within weeks, not months) is one of the biggest factors in whether your claim succeeds or fails.
Does a pre-existing mental health condition disqualify you from claiming nervous shock?
No, but it complicates things. Courts will examine whether the negligent event caused your psychiatric injury or simply added to existing conditions. In the Lundbergs case, the court found that accumulated life stressors caused the plaintiff’s illness, not the accident. A forensic psychiatrist’s report that separates the accident’s impact from pre-existing conditions is critical.
What’s the time limit for a nervous shock claim in Western Australia?
In WA, you generally have three years from the date of the incident to commence court proceedings for a personal injury claim, including nervous shock. Extensions are possible but never guaranteed. Starting the process early gives your lawyer time to gather psychiatric evidence and build a strong case.
Is nervous shock the same as emotional distress?
No. Emotional distress, grief, and anxiety are normal reactions to upsetting events. Nervous shock requires a diagnosed psychiatric illness, such as PTSD, major depressive disorder, or generalised anxiety disorder. According to 2025 ICA data, psychological claims cost insurers about four times what physical injury claims cost, which is why these claims face aggressive scrutiny.
Can you claim nervous shock if someone close to you was in a minor accident?
Possibly, but the Lundbergs v Fu ruling makes this harder. The court found it wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that a person would develop a psychiatric illness from learning about a minor crash where nobody was physically hurt. Stronger claims typically involve serious accidents with visible injuries, hospitalisations, or fatalities.
Rebecca Sorgiovanni is the Director of Soul Legal, a trusted Perth-based injury compensation lawyer with over two decades of experience representing injured clients in complex litigation and tribunals across Western Australia.
