Many people believe that starting a personal injury claim is a straightforward way to receive compensation. The reality in Queensland is much more complex. While Queensland offers compensation under various statutory schemes – including the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (WCRA), the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (MAIA), and the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA) – these claims often carry serious financial risks that can leave some claimants financially worse off than when they started.
At Roche Legal, we regularly recommend that claims not be made to protect those who are unaware of the significant financial risks should they proceed, which would only put them in a worse position.
1. You May Not Get What You Think You're Getting
Under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (CLA), pain and suffering (now known as general damages) is assessed using Injury Scale Values (ISV). These awards often fall well short of public expectations, and resemble nothing like awards seen on television dramas from the United States.
For example, according to the 2024-2025 litigation tables:
- A fractured wrist (ISV 5-10) might attract general damages of approximately $8,000 to $12,000.
- Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) may attract a higher ISV but is medically and legally challenging to prove.
Even what appears to be a "large" settlement is often heavily eroded by legal fees, refunds to statutory payers (like Medicare and Centrelink), and disbursement loans.
Note: Roche Legal does not use disbursement funders.
2. Limited Ability for Legal Cost Recovery
All personal injury legislation entitling one to bring a claim for damages in Queensland contain provisions limiting when legal costs can be recovered.
- Under section 75A of PIPA, legal costs are generally not recoverable for claims below the declared threshold, except in limited circumstances.
- Under section 100A of MAIA, similar limits apply to motor accident claims.
For 2024-2025, a claimant is only entitled to recover their legal costs from the other side if the matter resolves for $54,850 or more. Even then, if the amount of comepnsation does not exceed $91,460, then the amount of legal costs recoverable is fixed to a measly $4,590.
In WCRA matters, entitlement to any legal cost recovery is prohibited unless the injured worker sustains a permanent impairment of 20% or higher, which is rare. Most claimants under this legislation do not receive any contribution towards their legal costs. If there is an entitlement to recover costs, such fees would realistically be around $10,000 to $15,000 plus limited disbursements. That's the ballpark upper limit unless you commence court proceedings.
3. You May Have to Pay the Other Side's Costs – Even If You "Win"
Many claimants underestimate the serious costs risks involved in personal injury litigation. Consider Jane, a hypothetical 42-year-old nurse who slipped on a wet hospital carpark floor. She believes she has a strong negligence claim and commences proceedings under PIPA.
After three years of litigation and a five-day trial, the court finds her 50% contributorily negligent for her own injuries. Although her total damages were assessed at $40,000, she was ordered to pay a significant portion of the hospital's legal costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) and general costs principles. After paying her own legal fees, expert costs, disbursements, and the adverse costs order, Jane ends up with no 'in hand damages' and a debt exceeding $35,000.
While courts retain discretion on costs (see UCPR r. 681), the general rule remains that costs follow the event — the unsuccessful party usually pays the other side's legal costs, even in partial wins.
Related: Slip and fall injury claims that lost at trial
These cost risks become even more serious where a claimant rejects a reasonable settlement offer and fails to obtain a better outcome at trial. Under UCPR rules 353 and 361, a rejected offer can trigger adverse costs orders, including indemnity costs from the date the offer was made.
These are not fictional risks – Queensland courts routinely enforce adverse costs orders following rejected settlement offers. A case previously summarised by Roche Legal highlights this reality: Park v Nam & Anor [2023] QDC 140: A passenger plaintiff's compulsory-third-party claim under the MAIA was dismissed. The District Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the CTP insurer's (Allianz's) legal costs. Having refused to accept Allianz's statutory final offer under MAIA s 55F, those costs were assessable on an indemnity basis from the date that offer was served.
4. Limitation Period Traps
Strict time limits apply to Queensland personal injury claims. Generally, under section 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, a personal injury claim must be commenced within 3 years from the date of injury. Missing this deadline can permanently bar a claim.
Some exceptions exist (such as extending time under section 31), but these are not guaranteed and require significant legal hurdles. Many law firms do not offer to run these applications on a no win no fee basis. Simply applying to have the limitation date extended can come with a risk of having to pay the other side's legal costs if the application is unsuccessful.
5. The Psychological Toll
Beyond financial risk, claimants often underestimate the personal toll: surveillance by insurers, cross-examination at trial, independent medical examinations, and disclosure of personal, financial, and medical records. A plaintiff must effectively open their whole life up to scruiteny before the court. This process can feel intrusive and distressing for many claimants.
A Word of Caution
Personal injury law is not like winning the lottery. These claims involve complex legal processes, financial risks, and significant emotional strain. Success is never guaranteed, even where liability seems strong.
An experienced personal injury lawyer can assess not just your prospects of success, but also whether the financial risk profile makes it worth your while in pursuing.
At Roche Legal, we often advise clients not to proceed with a claim at all. In many cases, the most prudent financial decision is to walk away. And where claims do proceed, setting conservative expectations is critical. Sometimes, knowing when to stop is the best legal advice you will ever receive.
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.