In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Australia has unanimously sided with a Queensland man devastated by negligent hospital care, creating far-reaching implications for Australians living with catastrophic injuries.
The High Court of Australia has unanimously ruled in favour of Michael Stewart, a Queensland man left with catastrophic injuries, handing down a precedent-setting judgment expected to reshape how courts consider the rights and care of Australians living with severe injuries.
The judgment in Michael Stewart by his litigation guardian Carol Schwarzman v Metro North Hospital and Health Service (ABN 184 996 277 942) [2025] HCA 34 overturns earlier rulings by the Queensland Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, marking a significant shift in how future care damages will be assessed in personal injury cases.
The case arose after Stewart suffered a severe brain injury in 2016 due to negligent care at Redcliffe Hospital, leaving him profoundly disabled with a 96 per cent whole-person impairment and in need of 24-hour support.
Once an independent man living at home with his son and dog, Stewart was forced into institutional care following the negligent treatment that left him with multiple life-altering injuries.
After being placed in institutional care, Stewart’s physical and mental health declined, further compounded by limited access to therapy and restricted contact with his family and beloved pets.
Stewart sought compensation for home-based nursing and medical care, arguing it would restore his independence, reunite him with his son and dog, and better support his dignity and ongoing recovery.
The proposed home care plan, however, was $3.83 million more expensive than institutional care.
The central question within the judgment was whether Stewart’s preference for costlier in-home care could justify a higher award of damages than medically adequate, but far cheaper, institutional care.
The lower courts found that home care offered no measurable therapeutic or quality-of-life benefits compared to institutional care, but the High Court overturned that view, holding that reasonableness must be assessed not just by cost and health outcomes, but by the plaintiff’s right to rebuild their life as closely as possible to its pre-injury state.
Kirsten Van Der Wal, senior associate at Maurice Blackburn, hailed the ruling as a “landmark” decision for Australians living with catastrophic injuries, emphasising that courts must now place greater weight on a plaintiff’s choice of care.
“This is a landmark moment not just for Mr Stewart, but for all Australians living with the consequences of catastrophic injuries,” Van Der Wal said.
“The High Court confirmed that the assessment of damages must go beyond a narrow cost-benefit comparison of care options. The court emphasised that ‘reasonableness’ requires recognition of the injured person’s dignity, autonomy, and right to live as closely as possible to the life they would have led but for the injury.”
She noted that the judgment would have lasting effects well beyond Mr Stewart’s case, pointing out that it has been more than half a century since the High Court last addressed this issue.
“This victory doesn’t just impact Michael. All Australians catastrophically injured will benefit from the court’s recognition of Michael’s rights,” Van Der Wal said.
“The last time the High Court of Australia considered this issue was more than 50 years [ago]. We are proud to have stood by Michael and his family in his fight for justice and to update the law in Australia for the benefit of all catastrophically injured people.”
