The requirement that claims in negligence for psychiatric injury must stem from shock-induced damage is both artificial and arbitrary. For this reason, the "shock" requirement has been rejected by the High Court of Australia. However, shock-induced injury continues to be a key criterion in both the U.K. and Singapore, at least in cases not involving medical negligence. This article examines the history of the shock requirement and its application in all three jurisdictions. It concludes that, while the Australian position is to be preferred, there is no immediate indication that the law in either the U.K. or Singapore is likely to be modified to remove the requirement.