Ragoi v Transport Accident Commission [2026] VCC 277

1. The plaintiff, Ms Ragoi, was born in Kenya in 2004 and migrated to Australia with her family at the age of two. She completed Year 12 at MacKillop College in 2022. (Plaintiff's Court Book ("PCB") 11-12, [1]-[3])
2. Ms Ragoi was involved in a transport accident on 29 December 2019 when she was a passenger in a vehicle containing a number of members of her family and driven by her aunt. Ms Ragoi was wearing her seatbelt and asleep at the time of the impact.[1] Ms Ragoi was taken to the Royal Children's Hospital where she stayed overnight. A planned family visit to her native Kenya proceeded despite the injuries and trauma. At the hospital she was found to have suffered:

(a) a nose fracture;

(b) multiple lacerations;

(c) injuries to the left eye - traumatic iritis and microhyphema. She received ophthalmologic treatment in Kenya during her visit being treated with tropical steroids and Atropine. She said the vision "in the left eye was blurred over this time [vis. her visit to Kenya]".[2]

1. Ms Ragoi said she "started experiencing panic attacks". She consulted the school counsellor, though counselling had to be terminated with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the first half of 2020.[3] She began counselling and treatment with psychologist Ms Lubna Atif from 2 September.[4]
2. Ms Ragoi attended psychiatrist Dr Eleanor Debenhan for assessment from 6 September 2021.[5]
3. As at 30 October 2024, when Ms Ragoi made an affidavit in this proceeding, she was having regular consultations with her general practitioner and was taking prescribed antidepressant medication, at that time; Pristiq 100 milligrams per day.[6] She said that she suffered "ongoing problems with [her] psychological health since the accident" with her anxiety gradually worsening with "debilitating and regular panic attacks". These attacks were triggered by being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else. She said she became disconcerted when a friend drove a little too fast for her comfort or where she perceived "any remote possibility of a potential emergency situation". These panic attacks led to her shaking, sweating profusely and becoming tearful with an increase in heart rate. Her prescribed medication rendered these attacks "less frequent", but her anxiety remains and was "still triggered by being a passenger in a vehicle".[7]
4. She said she is far less anxious in a motor vehicle if she is at the wheel but, nevertheless, is "hypervigilant of cars around my vehicle". Driving across the Westgate Bridge, she said, she avoided "both the right-hand and left-hand lanes which are the closest to the barriers on the bridge".[8]
5. Ms Ragoi resides in Tarneit, therefore any motor travel to central Melbourne would take her across the Westgate Bridge.
6. She said that if she saw "another vehicle like the vehicle in which I was travelling at the time of the accident", that increased "[her] anxiety". She said she continued to have nightmares about her accident "although less frequently than previously". She suffered difficulty sleeping, being unable to sleep if she could hear her heartbeat. She had to resort to distracting techniques "like scrolling through my phone or playing music".[9]
7. Nevertheless, despite antidepressants raising her mood, she said she felt "lethargic and fatigued". Her appetite had improved somewhat. She complained of being "not fully confident in social settings".[10]
8. Ms Ragoi said that she "went off" her psychiatric medicine (then Valdoxan) in 2022, but the following year her "psychological health spiralled, and [she] became unwell". At the beginning of 2024, she consulted her general practitioner who put her back on antidepressant medication, with her psychological health having recovered to some degree after taking medication for about three months.[11]
9. She said she has significant scarring on her right hand and her right forearm and a scar on her left temple, which "are a reminder of the accident". Ms Ragoi's left eye injury had improved but she continued to have "some oversensitivity to light" in her right eye. Her nose fracture had "healed well".[12]
10. In a second affidavit made in December last year, she said that as in the previous year, she resides with her mother and is undertaking study for a nursing degree at Deakin University. She said:

"I will be doing a mixture of 2nd year and 3rd year subjects next year. Due largely to my mental health, I have fallen behind with assessments and assignments. I have failed to pass some units, and I had to repeat some."[13]

11. She said she continued doing casual work with an organisation known as "Strike Bowling".[14]
12. She continued regular consultations with her general practitioner and counselling sessions with Ms Atif, as recommended by psychiatrist, Dr David Weissman, whom she attended for assessment and medico-legal purposes. She has received some funding for the counselling sessions though there have been no open-ended grants of assistance in that respect.[15]
13. She said she had had "a lot of difficulty" with Pristiq and had been started on alternative medication, namely Fluoxetine, 20 milligrams per day. She found this change "helpful".[16]
14. Ms Ragoi said she continues to suffer "regular panic attacks ... about once a month", with symptoms similar to those described in the first affidavit.[17] She had become less nervous and hypervigilant as a passenger, particularly when the driver was someone known to her. She said her own driving had "improved in that [she could] now travel in the right hand lane or next to a traffic barrier such as on the Westgate bridge [sic]".[18]
15. She was still wary of traffic barriers and concerned that she tended to "over compensate". Therefore, she still preferred travelling in the middle lanes. She said she continued to suffer nightmares and flashbacks, saying she was:

"triggered by the smell that is emitted when airbags inflate. It's a curious smell that mixes in exhaust fumes and dust and will sometimes get a whiff of it or something like it, and a flashback of the accident is triggered."[19]

16. She complains of continued difficulties with sleeping, requiring her to use "distraction techniques like listening to a podcast or music, of [scil or] having a fan in [her] room ... to drown out the noise of [her] heartbeat ..."[20]
17. She said she continues to have "quite low periods", at which times her "personal hygiene and self-care is not what it should be, and I don't shower or change clothes daily".[21]
18. She said she continues to be anxious in social settings especially in a group of people which she did not know well. The scarring had become somewhat less noticeable. She had had her arm tattooed as a "distraction". She continued to be troubled by glare in her right eye and wore antiglare glasses "when in any bright light situation".[22]
19. She said she continues to have "low periods", though her medication assists and renders the low periods "not as drastic or as intense" as when she is unmedicated. She said that she continued to have a lot of difficulty keeping "on track" with her studies and meeting assignment deadlines.[23]

1. Solicitors acting for Ms Ragoi filed an Originating Motion commencing this proceeding on 7 May last year, seeking an order that Ms Ragoi have leave "to commence common law proceedings for a serious injury certificate pursuant to s 93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986".
2. Her particulars of injury, according to a document filed 26 November 2025, identified the following body parts having been injured:

(a) left eye;

(b) right eye;

(c) nose;

(d) right forearm;

(e) right hand;

(f) left temple.

1. She complained, by reference to paragraph (a) of the definition of a serious injury in s 93(17) of the statute, of severe long-term scarring and disfigurement and "a severe long-term mental or severe long-term behavioural disturbance or disorder", in terms of paragraph (c) of the definition.
2. When this matter came on for hearing before me Ms Ragoi's counsel relied solely on the contention that she had suffered "a severe long-term mental or severe long-term behavioural disturbance or disorder".

1. Ms Atif, the psychologist who has been providing treatment by way of counselling to Ms Ragoi over the years, wrote a short memorandum dated 10 September 2020 addressed to the Transport Accident Commission noting that Ms Ragoi had "been suffering Panic attacks and symptoms of anxiety since experiencing a motor vehicle accident late last year [viz. 2019]". Ms Atif said that Ms Ragoi suffered her first panic attack "during the travel as well as while overseas" and that the symptoms had continued. Ms Atif requested that Ms Ragoi "be granted [an] initial six sessions through TAC to access psychotherapy and address current symptoms".[24] Ms Atif provided a report to Ms Ragoi's solicitors dated 18 February this year. According to Ms Atif:

"Prior to the accident, [Ms Ragoi] was academically capable, highly motivated, and described as an excellent student with aspirations toward high-profile professional careers. There is no evidence of significant pre-existing psychiatric impairment affecting her functioning prior to the accident. Antoinette reported feeling anxious at times but symptoms were insignificant and did not impact her functioning in any way."[25]

2. Ms Atif diagnosed Ms Ragoi in terms of the well-known psychiatric diagnostic manual "DSM-5" as suffering:

(a) Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, moderate; and

(b) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

As to the depressive disorder, she commented "These symptoms cause clinically significant distress and impairment in academic, occupational, and social domains".[26] As to the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Ms Atif said that "Symptoms have persisted for longer than one month and result in clinically significant impairment". She also diagnosed "Persistent anxiety symptoms (trauma-related and generalised features)".[27] According to Ms Atif:

"Antoinette has engaged in psychological therapy over an extended period. Interventions have included trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), cognitive restructuring, behavioural activation, graded exposure to trauma reminders, emotional regulation strategies, psychoeducation, relaxation training, and mindfulness-based interventions. EMDR is yet to be utilised as part of trauma processing."[28]

She said that the therapy had "focused on rebuilding confidence, challenging maladaptive beliefs ('I am no longer capable'), and restoring structured daily routines". She noted antidepressant medication with an improvement of symptoms "during consistent treatment phases" but a recurrence "following medication adjustments or therapy interruptions". She said however that treatment continuity had:

"... been significantly disrupted due to delays in approval for ongoing psychological intervention. These gaps have resulted in regression of therapeutic gains. When Therapy is paused for extended periods, previously improved symptoms (e.g., intrusive memories, mood stability, motivation) deteriorate. This pattern has been clinically counterproductive and has hampered Antoinette's overall recovery."[29]

According to Ms Atif, Ms Ragoi's prognosis was "cautiously guarded". She said Ms Ragoi demonstrated "psychological insight, motivation for recovery, and positive response" which were favourable signs but recovery had been hampered by "interruptions in therapy and delays in treatment approval". Ms Atif said it was likely Ms Ragoi would "require ongoing psychological therapy in the medium to long-term, particularly trauma-focused treatment and relapse prevention work. Intermittent psychiatric review for medication management is also likely". She said without consistent treatment there was the "moderate risk of chronic depressive episodes and persistent PTSD symptoms".[30] Ms Atif said that:

"Prior to the accident, Antoinette functioned at a high academic level and aspired toward competitive professional roles. Since the accident, her academic performance has notably declined. Concentration difficulties, reduced motivation, fatigue, and self-doubt impair her ability to perform at her prior level."

Ms Atif said Ms Ragoi would "likely struggle to sustain the cognitive load, stress tolerance, and performance consistency required for high-pressure or high-profile professional roles equivalent to her pre-injury aspirations". Whilst she held "two patrt-time [sic] roles", according to Ms Atif "she often discloses her feelings of anxiety, frustration and overwhelm [sic] when trying to cope with the work load along with her study load".[31]

1. Ms Atif said she expected "gradual improvement in work capacity" with Ms Ragoi being "best suited to structured, predictable environments with reduced exposure to high stress, minimal multitasking demands, and flexibility regarding deadlines. Roles requiring sustained concentration under pressure or exposure to high levels of responsibility may exacerbate symptoms". Describing Ms Ragoi's psychological distress she said "This suffering is not merely subjective but functionally impairing, affecting her daily living, social engagement, academic participation, and occupational aspirations".[32] According to Ms Atif, Ms Ragoi had "withdrawn from peers" and participated "less in previously enjoyable activities. Fatigue and low mood reduce her engagement in family interactions. Hypervigilance in traffic affects independence and willingness to travel". Ms Atif said that Ms Ragoi's symptoms had "fully stabilised" and "Any further treatment is unlikely to make significant improvement in her symptoms, coping ability or her functioning capacity".[33]
2. Treating general practitioner Dr Rafal Al-Azawi provided a medical certificate dated 15 July 2021 addressed to "TAC Claims Advisor", noting Ms Ragoi's involvement in the transport accident "which had a significant impact on her Mental Health and well-being". He referred to "ongoing anxiety and panic attacks with difficulty sleeping and concentrating". He reported treatment by way of counselling by a psychologist and medication Valdoxan 25 milligram tablets.[34] The doctor provided a further brief report this time addressed to "TAC Team" dated 30 May 2025. According to the doctor Ms Ragoi's "mental health still unstable, she suffers ongoing Anxiety, panic attacks and depression . She will benefit from more psychologist session with Ms Lubna Atif under TAC".[35]
3. Ms Ragoi attended consultant psychiatrist Dr David Weissman at the request of her solicitors for assessment via FaceTime. The doctor provided a report to the solicitors dated 8 July 2025. He described Ms Ragoi as undertaking full-time studies at Deakin University: "studying her 2nd year of Bachelor of Nursing" and working as a "Part-Time Employee at Starbucks in Tarneit, working as a Shift Supervisor and as a Casual Worker at Strike Ten-Pin Bowling in Point Cook".[36] Dr Weissman took a history of Ms Ragoi having been bullied during her primary school education in Werribee with this bullying being "racially-based" and the fact that she had always been "larger in terms of her frame/weight". She described to the doctor "catty stuff" from female peers at her secondary college, though not specifically bullying. According to the doctor "She told me later during the interview that, prior to the accident, she was excellent academically and in an accelerated program for 'gifted' students". He said she told her that "her academic performance was significantly impacted by the occurrence of the subject transport accident, mainly it seems, due to her accident-related psychiatric symptoms".[37] The doctor noted a history of Ms Ragoi having suffered migraine headaches before the transport accident with these headaches always being "constantly bad" until recent years. He said "There is no past psychiatric history prior to the subject transport accident". He said Ms Ragoi told her she was "fairly extroverted" before the accident and occasionally experienced mild anxiety "but her anxiety was markedly aggravated after the accident, as well as new panic attacks, to follow".[38] The doctor took a detailed history of the circumstances of the transport accident and Ms Ragoi proceeding with the planned trip to Kenya despite the injuries and trauma.[39] According to the history her flight to Kenya via Dubai was "turbulent" and Ms Ragoi believed that the accident showed she had a "bad luck charm" and was convinced the plane was going to crash and he noted that she was anxious about death and mortality. The doctor took a formal history of Ms Ragoi's anxiety on the trip to Kenya, her return to Australia and resumption of her secondary education.[40] The doctor recited the history of Ms Ragoi's treatment, noting an initial prescription of Valdoxan in 2021, followed by Pristiq and ultimately Fluoxetine, 20 milligrams daily. He said she told him "her concentration and her short-term memory [was] 'not great'. When she studies, she plays a specific song in the background that helps her to concentrate and stay focused. She has various reminders in her diary and electronic devices".[41] The doctor took a history of Ms Ragoi's then current symptoms including avoidance of the accident site, nightmares and flashbacks and an avoidance of driving near "barricades".[42] She told the doctor according to the history that at that time she experienced panic attacks "roughly once per month" and had been unable to sleep through an entire night since the accident. The doctor recorded:

"I asked her about her appetite and weight. She described her weight as 'overweight'. However, her appetite is generally diminished. She eats only one or two meals a day. She said, 'My eating habits are heinous'. Her height is 165cm. I elected not to ask her about her weight. Or about her "sex drive".[43]

4. Asked about her view of the future Ms Ragoi told the doctor "I can't conceptualise more than 10 years into the future. I know I will finish university and have a life, but I'm not sure what that life will entail".[44] According to the doctor Ms Ragoi "came across as a very intelligent and articulate person. She was affable". He commented further "her affect was flat, subdued, and restricted in range, but still reactive and responsive".[45] Dr Weissman concluded that the transport accident "was - and still is - life-changing/life-altering" for Ms Ragoi. He said that she developed a "Moderately-severe acute stress disorder" and a "Moderately-severe acute adjustment disorder". With the accident occurring at a very sensitive and pivotal stage and age he said Ms Ragoi "has continued to suffer from significant and substantial chronic PTSD symptoms and features, chronic depression and anxiety, irritability, and panic attacks persistently" ever since the accident and continued to suffer "moderate, classical and discernible, chronic post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and traumatisation features" together with "fairly sustained, pervasive and persistent, depressive and anxiety symptoms".[46] He diagnosed:

"1. Moderate, chronic PTSD with Panic Disorder/panic attacks

5. 2. Persistent Depressive Disorder with anxious distress - at least moderate, and sometimes moderately-severe
6. 3. Chronic recurrent Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress - she has a current episode of this,"[47]

He said despite Ms Ragoi's unhappy experiences with stressors including bullying in primary school, "her premorbid ... psychiatric prognosis would still have been very good and favourable". He said "Her psychiatric prognosis for the future [was] mildly to moderately uncertain and guarded".[48]

1. Ms Ragoi's solicitors also had her assessed via Zoom on 13 February this year by Dr Elsa Yeung a consultant psychiatrist. Dr Yeung provided her assessment report by way of a letter dated 13 February 2026. The doctor took a history of the transport accident and Ms Ragoi's then current symptoms to similar effect as my summary of the history taken by Dr Weissman though perhaps somewhat less detailed. As to Ms Ragoi's pre-accident psychiatric history the doctor recorded:

"She [Ms Ragoi] reported experiencing bullying when she was in primary school due to her weight and her race. She said she was anxious at times. People would call her 'black chocolate or fat'. She would become more anxious before exams. I enquired about the letter by her psychiatrist [Dr Debenham] in 2021.She disputed the fact that she experienced panic attacks in year 8. She said at that time she was having more worries and anxiety. She stated that the first panic attack was on the flight to Kenya following the car accident. She also denied having suicidal thoughts when she was 11 years old. ... [She said] She started to experience suicidal ideation after the car accident."[49]

According to Dr Yeung Ms Ragoi "reported being in a gift and talented program [sic] from Year 7 to 9. She was actively involved in school activities such as performing arts, swimming, Taekwondo and dancing. There did not appear to be any functional impact despite having some anxiety symptoms pre-accident".[50] According to the doctor Ms Ragoi:

"... struggled when she first started her university study. She was initially enrolled in nursing and public health double major. She had to drop the public health as she reported a lack of motivation and struggled to hand in her work on time. She reported feeling better in 2025. She stated that she is on track again with her nursing studies. ... ."[51]

The doctor referred to Dr Weissman's assessment quoted and summarised earlier at PCB 77. According to the doctor Ms Ragoi "developed symptoms which were consistent with the diagnosis of PTSD" and "reported recurrent episodes of flare up of her depressive, anxiety as well as PTSD symptoms which are often triggered by her non-compliance with medication, other life stressors such as exams, assignments or her mother's illness".[52] The doctor said:

"In my opinion, her chronic PTSD would fluctuate between a mild and moderate severity depending on whether she experiences a flare up at the time. Currently it is of mild severity. She also experiences recurrent Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. I consider her current depressive episode is in early remission."[53]

"... is fit to return to her pre-injury duties. There is no incapacity of note due to her PTSD or recurrent depressive disorder. She will start her full-time university studies in March 2026. She stated that in 2025, since she had re-engage with the psychologist and being put on Fluoxetine, she was able to complete her assignments on time. She is looking forward to becoming a nurse. She can study up to three hours at a time. She can retain information. She enjoys the practical component in the hospital. She is also working part-time at Stike Bowling for the last three years. I do not consider there is any incapacity."[54]

1. According to the doctor as at the time of her assessment there was "no restriction on [Ms Ragoi's] social, domestic and recreational activities. She goes to the gym regularly. She started doing crocheting, colouring. She has a supportive boyfriend. She can go out with her friends. She enjoys social interaction." Nevertheless according to the doctor:

"However, at times of relapses, she would become socially withdrawn. She would struggle with her personal care, domestic duties and she would not engage in any recreational activities which was evident in the most recent relapse in December 2025. She reported her relapse typically last for a month to a few months. Her relapses are usually triggered by the non-compliant of her medication and dealing with extra stress in life."[55]

The doctor said that Ms Ragoi's prognosis was "good" although she might experience relapses of depression or PTSD "when she becomes non-compliant" or is "experiencing significant stressors in life".[56]

1. The defendant Transport Accident Commission had Ms Ragoi assessed for medico-legal purposes by consultant psychiatrist, Dr Steven Adlard on 27 January this year. The doctor provided his assessment and report by way of letter to the Commission's solicitor of the same date. The doctor took a history of the accident and Ms Ragoi's pre and post-accident health and life events and the treatment which she has undergone since the accident. The doctor recorded:

"Ms Ragoi said that she is generally more even in mood and she has more drive, as well as reasonable functioning on medication. She said she has the occasional day off where she feels low."[57]

According to the doctor, Ms Ragoi told him that her main "ongoing problem is anxiety", being anxious about her test results, anxious about her mother, hypervigilant while driving and so forth.[58] As to lifestyle issues, the doctor recorded:

"Outside of work/study, Ms Ragoi said she goes to the gym after [sic] 3-4 times per week and she does Pilates up to 2-3 times per week. She said she does crochet as a hobby as well as some make up artistry. At times she said she does gaming on a PC."[59]

The doctor recorded Ms Ragoi as complaining of nightmares "about weekly", memory problems and forgetfulness, and "she said her concentration was also affected at times."[60] On mental state examination, the doctor recorded:

"Ms Ragoi's mood appeared mildly anxious but she was not sustainably depressed in mood. She did not exhibit any obvious signs of panic such as hyperventilation. Her mood was well-communicated and appropriate to what was being discussed.

Thought stream and form were normal."[61]

"Her cognition appeared normal during the interview."

1. The doctor took a history of Ms Ragoi's having a seizure at a concert in January 2023 where "there were flashing lights". He said a CT scan that month was reported as normal.[62]
2. As to diagnosis, the doctor said:

"Ms Ragoi probably had a pre-existing Adjustment Disorder in relation to childhood bullying/teasing, but I do not think that condition was ongoing at the time of the transport accident. As a result of the December 2019 transport accident I think that Ms Ragoi has developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which is now mild in severity."

The doctor believed that the transport accident was the cause of the PTSD.[63]

1. Ms Ragoi was referred by her general practitioner to consultant psychiatrist, Dr Eleanor Debenham, for assessment. The doctor responded, reporting in a letter to the general practitioner dated 6 September 2021. According to Dr Debenham, Ms Ragoi "described her first panic attack as 'later in Year 8' ... triggered by a chemistry exam where she felt acute and overwhelming anxiety, distress and was crying."[64] It will be recalled that during an interview with Dr Weissman she denied the occurrence of this panic attack in Year 8, viz before the accident. The doctor also referred to:

"... a history of suicidal ideations since Antoinette was 11 years old. She described this to have emerged in the context of bullying and racism at school around her weight and Kenyan background."[65]

2. Reporting on her mental state examination, the doctor said of Ms Ragoi:

"She maintained eye contact and good engagement throughout. Her speech was coherence [sic] and spontaneous, with some increased rate but not latent or pressured speech. She described her mood as 'average', and her affect was noted to be generally euthymic, congruent and well communicated. Her thought form was linear. ... She was future-focused and no imminent risk issues were identified. She was not demonstrating perceptual changes. Cognition was not formally assessed and there was no overt confusion or disorientation. She demonstrated good insight and judgement into her experiences and positive help seeking behaviour."[66]

3. The doctor advocated continued counselling from Ms Ragoi's psychologist.[67] She recommended that Ms Ragoi "create a safety plan to help when she is distressed and feeling overwhelmed." She referred to a phone app developed by the anti-depression foundation, Beyond Blue.[68]
4. The doctor also advocated continuing treatment by way of medication, mentioning "agomelatine" which she said was "recommended by her GP", commencing with 25mg a day.[69]
5. The Commission also had Ms Ragoi assessed by Dr Leon Turnbull, an occupational and forensic psychiatrist, who assessed her on 23 August 2023 and furnished a report to the Commission by letter dated 28 August 2033. Under the heading "Psychiatric examination", the doctor remarked:

"Ms Ragoi was a polite and cooperative lady. There is still some ongoing anxiety and post-traumatic features in relation to the accident. She described these days feeling physically unremarkable."[70]

The doctor noted continuing complaints of panic episodes, anxiety, nightmares and flashbacks. He said he believed that Ms Ragoi's condition had stabilised.[71] He assessed Ms Ragoi's psychiatric impairment resulting from the accident at 10 per cent and found no such impairment unrelated thereto.[72] He did not believe that on the grounds of psychiatric impairment, Ms Ragoi was restricted in her employment.[73] As to the effects on her quality of life, the doctor said "these seem to be okay now, albeit anxiety in relation to being a passenger in a car can affect her."[74]

1. Section 93 of the Transport Accident Act 1986 restricts the ability of a person injured in what is defined in the statute as a "transport accident". It is common ground that the accident in which Ms Ragoi was involved falls within the statutory definition. For present purposes, the "gateway" of which Ms Ragoi seeks to avail herself is to have this Court grant leave under s 93(4)(d) and (6). This latter sub-section precludes the Court from giving leave "unless it is satisfied that the injury was a serious injury." The phrase "serious injury" is defined for these purposes in subs(17) as follows:

(a) serious long-term impairment or loss of a body function; or

(c) severe long-term mental or severe long-term behavioural disturbance or disorder; or

(d) loss of a foetus."

1. Ms Ragoi relies solely on paragraph (c) of the definition in seeking a finding that she suffers "severe long-term mental or severe long-term behavioural disturbance or disorder". As a member of a five judge Court of Appeal in Mobilio v Balliotis [1998] 3 VR 833, 846, Brooking JA remarked:

"I would say that 'severe' is used in the definition as a stronger word than 'serious'."

2. The result therefore is that an applicant for leave to bring a damages claim based on paragraph (c) of the definition of 'serious injury' bears a heavier burden in achieving success than one who relies on serious long-term impairment or loss of a body function under paragraph (a) of the definition."
3. Mr Moulds KC and Ms Manning relied on the decision of the High Court of Australia in Transport Accident Commission v Katanas.[75] In the Court, Kiefel CJ, Keane, Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ delivered a joint judgment in that case. They dismissed an appeal from a majority decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal reversing the trial judge's refusal to grant leave to the plaintiff to bring a damages claim. The High Court dismissed the Commission's appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision reversing the trial judge. The correctness of the observation made by Brooking JA in Mobilio v Balliotis was not directly raised. However, nothing was said by the High Court that was inconsistent with his Honour's dictum. Senior counsel for the appellant Commission relied upon Mobilio v Balliotis.[76] In the joint judgment, their Honours referred to the case with apparent approval, or at any rate no disapproval, the court observing "in Mobilio v Balliotis, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria affirmed the application of the narrative test in relation to mental and behavioural disturbances or disorder and held that 'severe' in that context is a stronger force than "serious".[77] The Court referred to Mobilio once again with apparent approval.[78] The Court ultimately determined the matter by reference to the celebrated formulation of the test for "serious injury" under the Transport Accident Act formulated by Crockett and Southwell JJ in Humphries v Poljak,[79] 140 where their Honours said:

"...we think that the task of a judge confronted with the requirement to determine an application made pursuant to sub-s(4)(d) when reliance is placed upon sub-s(17)(a) may be stated in the following terms: He is to be affirmatively satisfied (the burden of proof being borne by the applicant) that the injury complained of is in fact a serious injury. To qualify for such a description there must be an impairment or loss of a body function which as a result of the infliction of the injury complained of is both serious and long-term. We think 'long-term' is not an expression likely to give rise to difficulty. To be 'serious' the consequences of the injury must be serious to the particular applicant. Those consequences will relate to pecuniary disadvantage and/or pain and suffering. In forming a judgment as to whether, when regard is had to such consequence, an injury is to be held to be serious the question to be asked is: can the injury, when judged by comparison with other cases in the range of possible impairments or losses, be fairly described at least as 'very considerable' and certainly more than 'significant' or 'marked'? Beyond such guidance it is, we think**,** not possible to go."

4. The error identified by the Court of Appeal in Katanas's case in the application of the definition and the principles stated in the joint judgment in Humphreys v Poljak was that his Honour sought to measure the severity of the psychiatric injury in question by reference to the spectrum of treatments which might be applied to a psychiatric injury rather than by reference to the consequences of the injury. The High Court declined to find that the Court of Appeal majority had thereby fallen into error.

1. The consequences for Ms Ragoi of the psychiatric injury which she sustained are the persistence on a long term or indefinite basis of classic symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder including nightmares, flashbacks and hypervigilance, together with the need for ongoing long-term treatment both by way of counselling and medication to manage and control the symptoms. Ms Ragoi's experience has been that failing to persist with these modalities threatens her with regression to poor psychiatric health including a depressive disorder. Mr Clarke and Ms Matson on her behalf stressed that she is afflicted in this way on the cusp of adulthood and must look forward to the continuation of these restrictions and disadvantages on her living for decades to come. I accept that contention. It remains to determine, however, whether these consequences and the underlying psychiatric condition that drives them merit the appellation "severe" in the statutory definition.
2. Mr Clarke and Ms Matson placed primary reliance on the opinion of Dr Weissman who, it will be recalled, assessed the psychiatric conditions afflicting Ms Ragoi as moderate shading to severe. He did not, as I read his report, unequivocally embrace the appellation "severe". In contrast, Dr Debenham, to whom Ms Ragoi was referred for assessment and possible treatment, took a far less negative view of her condition and prognosis. Dr Adlard, upon whom Mr Moulds and Ms Manning placed their primary reliance, assessed Ms Ragoi's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as being "mild" at the time of assessment. Dr Yeung, the medico-legal assessor engaged by Ms Ragoi's solicitor, judged that she was not in need of treatment from a psychiatrist and had a good prognosis. The psychotherapy and Fluoxetine, in the doctor's view, had returned Ms Ragoi's symptoms "to baseline with limited effect on her level of functioning", with her depression being "in early mission" [scil remission].[80]
3. These more positive assessments (in contrast to Dr Weissman's) are borne out by the account emerging in evidence of Ms Ragoi's work, social and academic life. Ms Ragoi has throughout been able to maintain substantial part-time employment despite her commitment to full-time university studies with various employers, including McDonald's, Starbucks and, on a long-term basis, Strike Ten Pin Bowling.[81] The Strike complex is situated at Point Cook and her management responsibilities in that work included running shifts, fixing bowling lane errors and handling the cash. The complex includes some 24 bowling lanes and five party rooms, together with a mini golf course upstairs. The complex has a capacity of 500-600 guests.[82] Ms Ragoi has also been employed at the fast food outlet, Taco Bell.[83] She obtained a driving licence in January 2023.[84] Her work at the Strike Ten Pin Bowling Alley has varied over time, sometimes being an "all-rounder" and at other times being a supervisor. In cross-examination Ms Ragoi agreed that she could concentrate on her studies for three hours at a time.[85] Ms Ragoi's academic transcript shows some unsatisfactory progress. It is for this reason that 2026, her third year of study, will entail repeating some second-year subjects. Mr Moulds in cross-examining Ms Ragoi pointed out that the marked decline in her academic performance occurred in 2024, in contrast to the generally satisfactory results in 2023, which suggests matters in play other than the transport accident which occurred in 2019. Mr Moulds and Ms Manning correctly observed that the history taken by Dr Weissman of Ms Ragoi having been part of a gifted students' program during her secondary education was not supported by any sworn or affirmed testimony in Ms Ragoi's two affidavits or her viva voce evidence in this court.
4. She maintains an interest in popular music, attending three or four music festivals per year.[86] These festivals were attended by mass crowds. Two short video clips taken from Ms Ragoi's social media were put into evidence by the defendant illustrating this point.
5. Ms Ragoi's anxieties have not precluded her from being a driver herself and, as previously noted, her concerns in that respect have eased off somewhat in recent years, as have the frequency of nightmares and flashbacks.
6. On the entirety of the evidence, it may be arguable that her psychiatric condition is significant, or perhaps moderate. In light of the evidence summarised above, and supports the view that her condition falls short of being assessed as "severe".

1. I will direct the parties to bring in short minutes to give effect to these reasons.

1. I have heard no submissions on the question of costs and so I will reserve them.

I certify that these 20 pages are a true copy of the judgment of his Honour Judge Macnamara delivered on 16 March 2026.

[1] Transcript ("T") 13, Lines ("L") 17-21.

[75] [2017] HCA 32; (2017) 262 CLR 550.

[79] [1992] VicRp 58; [1992] 2 VR 129.