Australia: The assessment of damages in nervous shock claims in NSW

As first published in Precedent Magazine

Nervous shock claims are not like ordinary personal injury claims. In circumstances where a person is suffering the ongoing psychological consequences of a life-changing event, it is often difficult to assess the amount of damages that any plaintiff could be awarded.

This article examines four recent cases that provide some guidance as to how the courts have approached the assessment of damages in nervous shock claims.

SORBELLO v South Western Sydney Local Health Network; SULTAN v South Western Sydney Local Health Network [2016] NSWSC 863

This case concerned the psychological impact of the defendant's negligence during the birth of the plaintiffs' son, Joseph Buksh, who is profoundly disabled and requires lifetime care.

Joseph's parents, Ms Sorbello and Mr Sultan, pursued damages for nervous shock. Each parent dealt with the realisation of the extent of Joseph's injuries and disabilities in different ways. They both demonstrated quite different levels of fortitude after Joseph's birth and this issue was brought to the forefront by the defendant during the proceedings. Ms Sorbello cared for her son full-time after his birth and did not return to work so as to continue her carer role. Mr Sultan left the family when Joseph was aged two and has very little contact with Joseph.

On the Friday before the hearing commenced, the Health Network admitted that it owed each parent a duty of care, that it had breached those duties, and that some damage had been caused. What was left for the Court to consider was the extent of the damage suffered by each parent and the quantum of any damages resulting from the negligence.

Ms Sorbello

The psychiatric experts for each party agreed in a joint report that Ms Sorbello suffers from a persistent depressive disorder. She later developed some symptoms of anxiety, including panic attacks, thought to be associated with becoming the sole carer for Joseph after Mr Sultan left.

Dr Brown (the psychiatrist instructed for the defendant) was of the view that Ms Sorbello demonstrated a high level of functioning in daily life, showed resilience in her approach to Joseph's care and that her 'anxieties and concerns about his future were within the realm of a normal level of worry, given her predicament'.1Dr Brown did not consider there was any likelihood of deterioration in her condition over time, as she was providing such devoted care to Joseph and this resilience was relevant to her future prognosis. Her stoicism and dedication provided her with a significant measure of protection, and together with the practical assistance that would now be available to her as a result of Joseph's settlement, he assessed her prognosis as good.

Two other psychiatrists disagreed with that view. They provided opinions that there was potential for Ms Sorbello's condition to deteriorate, given the chronic and complex nature of Joseph's disabilities. They also noted the increasing physical and emotional demands that would be placed on her as she aged and Joseph got bigger.

Their view was that treatment to ameliorate the consequences of ongoing stressors would not remove them.2Although the settlement of Joseph's claim took away the financial burden, they did not expect Ms Sorbello's daily psychological struggle to change.

Ms Sorbello had claimed damages for loss of earnings. The defendant suggested that she had made a choice not to return to work, so that she could care for Joseph, and that with time to develop trust in carers, it was possible that she could return to some form of work.

This issue was addressed by the psychiatrists, specifically the issue of Ms Sorbello's preoccupation with Joseph and her related anxiety and inability to trust others to care for him. She did not feel well cared for by the medical profession and felt strongly that she had to be available to her child.3 There was a constant risk that Joseph's condition would change (including seizures or hospital admissions), requiring a high level of vigilance and constant concern and attention. This heightened, ongoing stress was not conducive to recovery, and any work environment would require flexible work practices and a supportive employer.

Her Honour Judge Schmidt found that with treatment and support, Ms Sorbello could probably work part-time, but practical issues limited her return to work.4

She noted that the financial settlement of Joseph's claim would permit Ms Sorbello to obtain assistance with his care, but that those changes would not materialise for a further 18 months. Her Honour went on to assess Ms Sorbello's future earning capacity as no more than 50 per cent.

Significantly, despite the fact that the court found that Ms Sorbello had a theoretical earning capacity, no evidence was led by the defendant of the availability of work which would meet her capacity. In the absence of that evidence, 'it cannot be concluded that there will be jobs available to Ms Sorbello in the future, which would permit her to exploit the earning capacity she may recover.' 5

Her damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
35 per cent of a most extreme case $208,000
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel
Future expenses
Medical treatment and medication
Economic loss
Past wage loss and superannuation (less the period of planned maternity leave of 12 months). Future economic loss and superannuation (as she had no ability to expend any residual earning capacity).

Mr Sultan

The defendant argued that Mr Sultan was not entitled to any damages as he had suffered no injury as a result of its negligence and was exaggerating and/or fabricating his symptoms.

Mr Sultan's credibility was clearly in issue. The defendant's psychiatric expert considered that the description and timing of his depressive symptoms were atypical. Dr Brown reported:

'Because Mr Sultan has not attended counselling and has apparently not reported psychological symptoms to a doctor, there may not be any corroboration for his account of developing these various complaints of emotional distress since Joseph's diagnosis with cerebral palsy. On this basis, the diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder is dependent on Mr Sultan's reliability as a historian'.6

Dr Brown considered that Mr Sultan had suffered a normal emotional reaction to Joseph's diagnosis when she first assessed him in 2012. However, two years later, when she reassessed him, he gave a history suggesting a significant deterioration in his condition. She was of the view that the symptoms described were out of proportion given that he was not regularly confronted by his son's disabilities (as by that time he had left the family and started a new relationship, thereby having very limited contact with Joseph).

Dr Allnutt (psychiatrist instructed for the plaintiff) considered that Mr Sultan exhibited symptoms consistent with a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, having witnessed the distressing events of Joseph's birth and later seizures.

Mr Sultan, in his evidence, described among other things, that he felt guilty about what happened during Joseph's birth and that after his diagnosis, he did not want to be at home, or have anything to do with his wife and Joseph. He agreed that he felt judged by others and was angry with himself for not seeing Joseph.

The judge considered the evidence given by Ms Sorbello concerning her then husband's condition. She had corroborated parts of the history Mr Sultan gave, and it was accepted that Ms Sorbello had suffered considerable shock as a result of Joseph's birth and diagnosis, so why should it be accepted that Mr Sultan did not suffer a similar shock, given that they were exposed to those same stressors?

The fact that Ms Sorbello and Mr Sultan dealt with these experiences in different ways does not necessarily preclude the acceptance of both of their nervous shock claims.

Ms Sorbello devoted herself to Joseph and his care. Mr Sultan responded by working more, avoiding (and then leaving) his family and feeling fear, shame and guilt about what had happened.

Her Honour accepted that these symptoms of emotional withdrawal represented a diagnosable psychiatric disorder rather than Mr Sultan's 'personality', as suggested by Dr Brown.

The evidence given by Ms Sorbello described a happily married couple before Joseph's birth and that the pressures surrounding Joseph's condition and the care he required led to Mr Sultan leaving his family. Dr Allnutt accepted this proposition, explaining that Mr Sultan's avoidance of Joseph was because he found the situation too distressing to deal with. Her Honour concluded 'It was not a consequence of being a person not prepared to accept responsibility, or because he was a bad father, but because of his lack of adjustment, that he dealt with his distress by running away from his problems.'7

His damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
20 per cent of a most extreme case $21,000
Past expenses
Nil as no treatment sought
Future expenses
Medical treatment and counselling
Economic loss
His failure to pursue employment was not caused by his psychiatric condition and he would return to full-time capacity in 12 months.

The court held that Jones v Dunkel inferences were available to be drawn against Mr Sultan, as he failed to call his current wife to give relevant evidence about his alleged condition as well as his economic losses.8

McManus v Murrumbidgee Local Area Health Network [2016] NSWSC 1347

Ms McManus sued for damages for nervous shock following the death of her son, who passed away soon after birth. Liability was admitted and the issue to be dealt with at the hearing was a proper assessment of Ms McManus' damages.

The evidence in the proceedings consisted of statements from Ms McManus, her husband, mother and two friends, and reports from her treating psychiatrist and medico-legal experts.

Both parties accepted that Ms McManus had suffered a significant and serious psychiatric injury. Issues concerning her prognosis and treatment options were explored at hearing.

One of the matters to which the defendant pointed as suggesting probable improvement in Ms McManus's condition was the likely beneficial effect of the completion of the legal proceedings. This view received general support from some of the medical practitioners who had examined Ms McManus.

Dr Brown (psychiatrist for the defendant) reported that 'Mrs McManus acknowledged the exacerbating effect of her involvement in the legal proceedings and (sic) which because of its drawn out nature has led to repeated anticipatory anxiety and subsequent feelings of disappointment when the matter has been adjourned.'9

The use of this type of argument in litigation of this type is not new. However, in this specific case, Dr Brown pointed out the fact that Ms McManus had mentioned that on a number of occasions, at critical stages of the proceedings – for example, the mediation – she developed some of the warning signs of relapse and admitted herself to hospital.

Dr Gertler (psychiatrist for the plaintiff) commented, during the course of concurrent evidence:

'With a resolution of litigation the nature of the illness is such that it does have a fluctuating cause. Symptoms can be triggered or exacerbated by various factors, situations, triggers, if you like, and the ending of litigation certainly will relieve one level of anxiety or one possible trigger.'10

His Honour Judge Harrison rejected the argument that Ms McManus's suffering would be alleviated by the completion of the legal proceedings:

'The resolution of these proceedings will undoubtedly be beneficial to Ms McManus but that will not make a significant difference to her suffering in my opinion. In particular, it will neither shorten the duration of her condition nor significantly alter its intensity. The part to be played in ameliorating Ms McManus' otherwise unfortunate prognosis by conclusion of her case will be minimal.'11

The issue of future treatment was controversial. Dr Brown indicated that Ms McManus would likely benefit from therapy such as desensitisation sessions. She stated: 'It would be I think a great shame for her not to have the opportunity to undergo treatment which may make a significant difference to her outcome in the longer term.'12

Desensitisation therapy would require Ms McManus to revisit the death of her son with a view to reducing its significance as a source of her psychiatric difficulties.

His Honour considered that it would not be unreasonable for Ms McManus to refuse to submit to this type of treatment.13

Ultimately, the court rejected any argument that Ms McManus had any real or tangible prospect of improvement. Her post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety were said to be ongoing and unrelenting, preventing her from enjoying or participating in most activities of daily life.

Her damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
60 per cent of a most extreme case $356,500
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel $112,155
Future expenses
Psychiatric consultations $56,571
($250 a session per month for life)
Psychologist consultations $117,672
($120 a session per week for life)
Inpatient expenses $195,500
(semi-annual admissions for life)
Travel expenses $50,000
Medication $55,000
Vocational/Supportive Counsellor $5,000
Domestic assistance
Past assistance $65,060
(between 7 and 14 hours per week)
Future assistance $192,200
(combination of 7 hours paid and gratuitous for life)
Economic loss
Past wage loss $152,410
Past superannuation loss $18,100
Future economic loss $365,860
(no improvement in income from current level)
Future superannuation loss $43,470

A total damages entitlement of $1,785,498 plus costs.

Lee v Carlton Crest Hotel (Sydney) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1280

The plaintiff, Ms Lee, was a passenger in a car being driven by her husband. He drove into a multi-level car park and she alighted from the vehicle while her husband attempted to reverse the car into a car space. She heard the engine rev and saw the car reverse towards the metal barrier, which disintegrated, and the car fell off the edge to the floor below. She rushed to the ground floor and found her husband fatally injured.

Ms Lee pursued a nervous shock claim, having suffered an almost complete psychological collapse after witnessing her husband's death. She did not move into the house that she and her husband had purchased, became suicidal and had to limit her working hours (as a speech therapist). She sought treatment from a counsellor, psychologist and a psychiatrist and took anti-depressant medication (she was taking five forms of medication for various symptoms at the time of the hearing).

Dr Phillips (psychiatrist for the plaintiff) explained that grief can be broken down into three stages:

Stage 1 – shock and disbelief which tends to conclude within minutes or hours.
Stage 2 – described as grief or pining which tends to last around six months.
Stage 3 – described as grief with restoration of a normal pattern of life. This stage generally concludes within two years.

According to Dr Phillips, Ms Lee 'had become arrested in the second stage of grief'. She was diagnosed as suffering a chronic and lasting psychiatric condition by her treating psychiatrist.

Dr Akkerman (psychiatrist for the defendant) suggested that there were various treatment options that might still be effective in treating Ms Lee's condition. However, his Honour accepted the evidence of her treating psychiatrist, who had been treating her for five years and described a range of treatment options that had been largely unsuccessful. Her psychiatrist's assessment of Ms Lee's prospects of recovery was gloomy and he suggested that she need ongoing domestic assistance and would be unlikely to have any greater earning capacity than the present time (at hearing).

Her damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
50 per cent of a most extreme case $275,750
Due to the likely permanence of her condition
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel $53,882
Future expenses
Psychiatric consultations
($350 a session, 6-10 per annum for life)
Psychologist consultations
($230 a session, 8-10 per annum for life)
Inpatient expenses
(three hospital admissions and three day patient programs)
Medication ($33 per week)
Total of $186,343
Domestic Assistance
Past assistance $40,400
Future assistance (2.5 hours per week)
Economic Loss
Past wage loss and superannuation
Future economic loss and superannuation – Limited to a 50 per cent earning capacity with a deduction for vicissitudes of 17.5 per cent to reflect the limited potential for her to recover.

Although claimed, no costs for funds management was awarded as none of the medical reports tendered by the plaintiff addressed her capacity to manage a fund.

Ingrid Margaret Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Natalee Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Jay Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council, South West Helicopters Pty Limited v Essential Energy (formerly Country Energy); Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 719

Ingrid, Jay and Natalee Stephenson pursued nervous shock claims resulting from the death of Mr Stephenson in a helicopter crash.

Ingrid (the deceased's wife) was alerted to the accident by her son and advised over the telephone by the police that three people had died. The expert psychiatrists who examined Mrs Stephenson agreed in a joint report that she had suffered a depressive reaction following her husband's death which went beyond the normal experience of grief or bereavement. Although her treatment was helping and she was progressing towards recovery, she was still suffering symptoms more than nine years after the accident.

Her damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
45 per cent of a most extreme case $257,490
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel $45,065
Future expenses
For between two and three years $7,392
Economic loss
Past wage loss and superannuation $30,832
Future economic loss and superannuation – nil as no likelihood she will leave her present employment.

The plaintiff also claimed the costs of the coronial inquest, but these were held to be too remote to form part of any damages.14

Jay (the deceased's son) was 21 years old at the time of his father's death. He saw his general practitioner to discuss the fact that he was constantly thinking about his father and felt generally depressed. He did not engage in any formal treatment but began drinking hazardously and smoking more. He suffered nightmares and took a short period of time off work.

The expert psychiatrists agreed that Jay had suffered a depressive reaction beyond normal grief, but that he was in remission by 2013 and his prognosis was reasonably good.

His damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
30 per cent of a most extreme case $171,660
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel $541
Future expenses
Drug and alcohol counselling $3,000
Economic loss
Past wage loss and superannuation $3,000
Future economic loss and superannuation – nil as his condition did not impair his capacity to work.

Natalee (the daughter of the deceased) was 18 years old at the time of her father's death. After learning of his death she formed a plan to leave Parkes as soon as possible and did so soon after her father's funeral. Her marriage broke down. She described symptoms of constant worry and fear that others close to her would die. She had occasional suicidal thoughts and felt helpless, hopeless and useless. She had trouble sleeping and she had put on weight (40kgs).

The expert psychiatrists agreed that Natalee had suffered a depressive reaction beyond normal grief. There was some evidence of a pre-morbid vulnerability, but no evidence of a specific pre-existing psychiatric illness. She required treatment but her condition did not impair her capacity to work.

Her damages were assessed as follows:

Non-economic loss
35 per cent of a most extreme case $200,270
Past expenses
Medical treatment and travel $2,000
Future expenses
Treatment and medication $5,000
Economic Loss
Nil as her condition did not impair her capacity to work.


What is demonstrated by these recent cases is the importance of the following evidence:

  • strong psychiatric expert opinion detailing diagnosis, prognosis and future treatment recommendations;
  • reports from treating psychiatrists or psychologists detailing history and treatment regime to date as well as the likelihood of success of future treatment;
  • statements from close friends and family who can describe the plaintiff before and after the incident and any care or assistance they have provided; and
  • documented work capacity, including the potential for future work and the likely availability of any future work.

It is clear that with the right evidence before the court, damages for nervous shock claims can be assessed at significant sums.


1Sorbello v South Western Sydney Local Health Network; and Sultan v South Western Sydney Local Health Network [2016] NSWSC 863, [79]

2 Ibid, [85].

3 Ibid, [88].

4 Ibid, [134].

5 Ibid, [145].

6 Ibid, [157].

7Ibid, [184].

8 Ibid, [22-4].

9McManus v Murrumbidgee Local Area Health Network [2016] NSWSC 1347 [53]

10 Ibid, [56].

11 Ibid, [58].

12 Ibid, [59].

13 Ibid, [63].

14 Ingrid Margaret Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Natalee Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council; Jay Stephenson v Parkes Shire Council, South West Helicopters Pty Limited v Essential Energy (formerly Country Energy); Parkes Shire Council v South West Helicopters Pty Limited (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 719, [37].

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.