The judgment is published here:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decis...b06e6e9f0f55e0
The parties agreed a number of issues, one of which was Ms Casey and Dr Helm were passengers on NGA. Why the parties decided not to agitate that issue is not explained:
THE ISSUES
11 Ms Casey, Dr Helm and CareFlight claimed damages from Pel-Air, who accepted that the crash had been caused by the negligence of the pilot and co-pilot, for which it had vicarious liability.
12 The traumatic nature of what Ms Casey and Dr Helm had experienced was not in issue, nor that they had both suffered physical injuries in the crash. That Ms Casey had also suffered serious psychiatric injuries was not in issue, nor was that they had both received workers compensation payments from CareFlight.
13 The claims pressed by CareFlight were settled during the hearing on terms requiring Pel-Air to pay CareFlight an agreed sum in respect of workers compensation payments it had made to Ms Casey and Dr Helm.
14 There was also finally no issue between the remaining parties that:
Pel-Air held a licence in force under the relevant legislation and provided the plane which crashed to CareFlight pursuant to an agreement under which there was international carriage to which the 1999 Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air applied .
Ms Casey and Dr Helm were passengers on that plane. The Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) applied as a result to their claims.
Their physical injuries were compensable under that Act.
The damages to which they were entitled had to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).
The ratio of the decision is that PSTD is compensable "bodily injury" for the purpose of the Montreal Convention and section 9E of the
Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act.