Queensland Supreme & District Court Awards for Personal Injuries in 2024

These summaries are based on the judgments for personal injury claim trials published on the Supreme Court Library Queensland (SCLQ) website in 2024. The judgments are predominantly 'unreported' decisions which means that the reasons for decisions delivered by judges have not been selected for inclusion in an authorised law report series, such as the Queensland Reports. Unreported judgments are publicly accessible via the SCLQ's CaseLaw database.

Only a select number of these decisions are later chosen for reporting in authorised series. Both reported and unreported judgments are valuable legal resources, but reported judgments are generally given greater precedential weight in legal proceedings. All judgments from SCLQ nonetheless carry persuasive legal authority.

MAIA Claims (Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994)

Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35

• Facts: Dr Youssef, who was 54 years old at the time of the accident, was working as a general practitioner. He suffered facial and spinal injuries in a motorcycle crash and alleged psychiatric injury. He was self-represented at trial. The insurer admitted liability for physical injuries but contested psychiatric sequelae and long-term income loss.
• Outcome: The court awarded damages for physical injuries only, rejecting the psychiatric claim due to insufficient medical evidence linking the PTSD to the accident. The court considered the psychiatric condition to have multiple possible causes and found the expert evidence did not support a direct causal relationship, which significantly limited the scope of damages recoverable.
• Damages: $85,466.56. The most substantial head of damage was past economic loss.
• Roche Legal's Opinion: As Dr Youssef was self-represented, he may have faced challenges in framing his psychiatric case persuasively or ensuring the necessary medico-legal support was obtained. A personal injury lawyer could have helped him prepare expert evidence on causation and quantum, better articulate the psychiatric claim, and potentially improve both the evidentiary foundation and outcome of the case.
• Full Judgment

Ruvuta v Jaderberg & Anor [2024] QDC 107

• Facts: The plaintiff, a refugee from Rwanda, was 27 years old at the time of the accident. He was working in a food processing plant and commuting home by bicycle when he was hit by a vehicle. He claimed a meniscal tear caused by the accident, later aggravated during sport.
• Outcome: The court found the knee injury was caused by the accident and accepted the plaintiff's honest account despite language barriers. The insurer strongly contested the link between the meniscal tear and the accident, asserting it occurred during a soccer game 14 weeks later. The defence relied on gaps in medical records, delayed reporting, and the plaintiff's continued physical activity. However, the court preferred the plaintiff's consistent and credible testimony, noting his limited English proficiency and cultural background. It found that the lateral force from the vehicle strike, combined with his instinctive evasive movement, plausibly caused the knee injury. The defence's alternative explanation was considered speculative and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
• Damages: $124,456.89. The most substantial head of damage was past economic loss.
• Full Judgment

Barbina v McKenzie & RACQ Insurance Ltd [2024] QDC 153

• Facts: Ms Barbina, was 41 years old at the time of injury and worked as a homemaker. She claimed ongoing spinal and psychological injuries from a rear-end collision. The plaintiff was originally represented, but her lawyers withdrew before trial and she continued on a self-represented basis.
• Outcome: The court accepted only a minor aggravation of spinal issues and found no basis for a psychiatric claim. This was largely due to a lack of objective medical evidence supporting ongoing impairment or psychological injury. The plaintiff, who was self-represented and required a McKenzie friend and interpreter, did not lead any expert psychiatric evidence and struggled to substantiate the severity and ongoing nature of her complaints. Had she been represented by a lawyer, she may have overcome evidentiary hurdles, obtained supporting medical reports, and framed her damages more persuasively – potentially leading to a higher award.
• Damages: $15,320. The most substantial head of damage was general damages for minor spinal injuries. The award was low due to the court finding only a modest aggravation of pre-existing conditions, with no persuasive evidence of ongoing functional limitation or economic impact. The plaintiff's inability to produce medical or psychiatric expert evidence substantially limited the scope of compensable loss.
• Roche Legal's Opinion: As in the case of Youssef v Eckersley summarised above, this claim highlights the risk of pursuing damages at trial without legal representation. In Barbina, it is reasonable to infer that a breakdown between the plaintiff and her lawyers over the claim's prospects or value may have led to this course. Ignoring or departing from the advice of experienced personal injury lawyers can be perilous, especially where expert evidence is required to substantiate ongoing impairment or psychiatric injury. The absence of such evidence not only reduced the damages awarded to a modest sum, but also exposed the plaintiff to the risk of adverse cost consequences, considering the claim was only minimally successful.
• Full Judgment

WCRA Claims (Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003)

Carey-Schofield v Hays & Civeo [2024] QSC 60

• Facts: The plaintiff, a 32-year-old labour-hire worker with Hays, was employed as a kitchen hand at Civeo's Dysart site when he suffered a back injury while lifting boxes. Neither employer nor host company provided training or supervision.
• Outcome: The court found both companies liable for failing to provide a safe system of work. It was held that the injury resulted from inadequate induction processes and a lack of proper manual handling training by both the labour-hire agency and the host employer. Liability was apportioned 75% to Civeo and 25% to Hays, reflecting Civeo's greater practical control over the site and daily operations where the incident occurred. The injury caused long-term work incapacity.
• Damages: $815,742.38. The most substantial head of damage was future economic loss.
• Full Judgment

Bilson v Vatsonic Communications Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 42

• Facts: Mr Bilson, who was 38 years old at the time of injury and employed as a service crew operator, lost vision in one eye after being struck by a vacuum hose while cleaning stormwater pits. The case involved a factual inquiry into how the task was performed and whether sufficient coordination existed between Vatsonic (the private contractor) and Townsville City Council staff.
• Outcome: The court held Vatsonic liable for failing to implement a coordinated, safe work system. The defence argued that the responsibility for safety fell primarily on the supervising council staff and that Vatsonic's role was limited to providing equipment and labour. However, the court found that Vatsonic retained operational control of its workers and failed to establish or enforce clear communication and safety protocols with the council team. This systemic deficiency in planning and risk assessment contributed directly to the unsafe conditions that caused the plaintiff's injury.
• Damages: $359,689.84. The most substantial head of damage was for loss of earning capacity.
• Roche Legal's Opinion: Although Townsville City Council was not a party to the proceedings, the court's findings suggested it bore some operational responsibility. It is arguable that the Council ought to have been joined as a defendant given its supervisory role and the shared nature of the task.
• Full Judgment

Gilmour v Blue Care [2024] QDC 189

• Facts: Ms Gilmour, who was 22 years old at the time of injury and employed as a personal carer, was sexually assaulted at a high-risk residential facility where she was sent alone by her employer, Blue Care, without safety training. She developed chronic PTSD, which manifested in severe flashbacks, nightmares, social withdrawal, emotional dysregulation, hypervigilance, and panic attacks. These symptoms significantly impacted her ability to work in care settings and disrupted her daily life, prompting multiple attempts to return to the workforce in alternative roles before ultimately leaving due to psychological distress.
• Outcome: The court held Blue Care liable for breaching its non-delegable duty of care. The employer failed to conduct any appropriate risk assessment of the external site and did not provide adequate safety instructions, training, or support mechanisms such as a duress alarm. These omissions were found to have exposed the plaintiff to foreseeable harm from third-party conduct in a known high-risk environment.
• Damages: $239,272.98. The most substantial head of damage was future economic loss.
• Full Judgment

Gairns v Pro Music Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 118

• Facts: Mr Gairns, who was 50 years old at the time of injury and employed as an internal sales supervisor with Pro Music Pty Ltd, developed psychiatric illness after being demoted without procedural fairness despite known mental health vulnerabilities. These included a history of major depressive disorder and anxiety, which had previously been managed but were well documented in his workplace medical records. Following the demotion, he claimed to suffer a relapse in his mental health including symptoms of intense anxiety, insomnia, social withdrawal, and episodes of suicidal ideation.
• Outcome: The employer was found liable for negligently triggering foreseeable psychiatric harm. The court accepted that the plaintiff had a known vulnerability to stress and mental health difficulties, and that the demotion process was conducted without any procedural fairness or support mechanisms in place. The employer failed to engage occupational health services, did not offer alternatives or warnings, and carried out the demotion in a way that was abrupt and demeaning. These factors cumulatively created a foreseeable risk of psychiatric injury, which the employer did not mitigate.
• Damages: $395,767 (net damages were $301,197 after WorkCover refund). The most substantial head of damage was loss of earning capacity.
• Full Judgment

Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142

• Facts: Mr Sawyer, who was 31 years old at the time of injury, injured his back while lifting steel mesh at a residential site in 2016, allegedly due to a lack of a safe system of work. He later aggravated the injury in 2017. The court examined whether the initial injury caused the Plaintiff a prolapsed disc and whether subsequent aggravation and psychiatric injuries were related. The Plaintiff sued his employer, the principal contractor, and the site owner.
• Outcome: The court dismissed claims against the principal contractor and site owner, finding they did not owe a duty of care under the circumstances presented. However, the court determined that the employer was liable for not providing a safe system of work. It accepted the 2016 incident materially contributed to the prolapsed disc and resulting incapacity, based on contemporaneous medical records and credible evidence of unsafe manual handling practices. The judge found the plaintiff generally credible but noted some inconsistencies, particularly regarding subjective complaints, and concluded that the risk of such injury was foreseeable and preventable through adequate training or supervision.
• Damages: $781,082.09 awarded. The most substantial head of damage was for economic loss due to Mr Sawyer's inability to continue concreting work.
• Full Judgment

Miller v WorkCover Queensland [2024] QDC 156

• Facts: Ms Miller, aged 52 at the time of the alleged incident, was a senior employee and beneficial owner of Wet Fix Pty Ltd. She alleged that her estranged husband, also a director at the company, strangled her during an altercation at work on 20 February 2019. She claimed to have developed PTSD as a result and sought damages from WorkCover. She was self-represented at trial.
• Outcome: The court dismissed the claim, finding Ms Miller was not a "worker" under the WCRA due to her effective control over the company as a de facto director. It further held that she failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the alleged strangulation occurred. The judge found her evidence lacked credibility due to repeated fabrication, including altered medical images and inconsistent financial disclosures. Even if an injury had occurred, the court held that the psychiatric injury claimed was not causally connected to the workplace and that any alleged assault was not reasonably foreseeable.
• Damages: $NIL. No award was made. The plaintiff's failure to establish either liability or causation – and her lack of credible evidence (and refusal to provide financial records to support her claim for economic loss) meant that no damages could be assessed. She was subsequently ordered to pay Workcover's costs.
• Full Judgment

PIPA (Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002)

Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2024] QSC 41

• Facts: Mr Stewart, who was 62 years old at the time of the injury and retired from full-time employment, suffered bowel perforations and severe complications due to negligent hospital care at Redcliffe Hospital in 2016. As a result of the perforation and ensuing sepsis, he underwent multiple emergency surgeries, experienced a cardiac arrest, and suffered a significant stroke that left him with severe functional impairment. He required a tracheostomy, developed a long-term risk of aspiration, and required assistance with all activities of daily living. The court considered how his diminished life expectancy should influence damages for future care.
• Outcome: Liability was admitted. The court determined it was not reasonable to fund a return to home care when care facility services already met his essential medical and personal needs at a significantly lower cost. While the plaintiff preferred to live independently, the court found that the benefits of supported living did not justify the additional expense given his prognosis and comparable level of care available in the facility. The defendant submitted that an appropriate award for future care would be in the range of $820,000, assuming supported accommodation remained in place. The court rejected this as an underestimate of Mr Stewart's high-level care needs and instead accepted the plaintiff's evidence and expert opinion, awarding over $1.7 million for that head of damage.
• Damages: $2,190,505.48 (before management fees). The most substantial head of damage was for future care and assistance. Despite Mr Stewart being 62 years old and retired at the time of injury, his complex medical needs – resulting from multiple bowel surgeries, a stroke, sepsis, and a tracheostomy – necessitated 24-hour care. The court accepted expert evidence that his care needs were extensive and ongoing, and it found that his life expectancy, though shortened, still justified a substantial forward projection of care costs.
• Full Judgment
• Update: Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2024] QCA 225: On appeal, the total damages award was revised from $2,190,505.48 to $2,171,244.03. The Court of Appeal allowed minor adjustments but otherwise upheld the trial findings.

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.