Personal injury litigation in Queensland is entering a new era, writes John Connellan.
The year 2025 was a busy year in personal injury litigation in Queensland. Legislative reforms, evolving judicial attitudes, and technological integration are all reshaping how claims are assessed and resolved. As we count down to the end of 2025, I’ve taken the opportunity to look back at some of the highlights (and lowlights) from the last calendar year.
Legislative and procedural developments
The Queensland government introduced the Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2025, which came into effect on 1 September, replacing the 2014 version. Key changes include:
In this space, perhaps of most interest to practitioners, are the changes to the indexed financial thresholds brought about by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Indexation Notice 2025 (SL No. 55 of 2025):
How long before the upper offer limit exceeds $100,000.00? While some erosion of the “costs follow the event” principle may be justified in support of the sustainability of the state’s workers’ compensation or compulsory third-party insurance schemes, that rationale does not extend to public liability claims under PIPA. In such cases, the ever-increasing cost recovery thresholds raise legitimate concerns about access to justice for otherwise deserving claimants in lower quantum matters.
The Stewart case, and reaffirming ‘reasonableness’
Queensland courts continue to refine the principles governing personal injury compensation. Arguably, the most consequential development in 2025 is the High Court’s ruling in Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34, which has fundamentally reshaped the approach to assessing damages for future care.
Michael Stewart, aged 63, suffered catastrophic injuries due to negligent treatment at Redcliffe Hospital in 2016. He suffered a stroke and profound brain damage. He was left with a 96 per cent whole person impairment and required 24-hour care.
Before the injury, Mr Stewart lived independently, and his teenage son and family dog were central to his daily life. After discharge, he was placed in institutional care in an aged care facility (the institution). While in the institution, he was non-verbal and became disengaged from therapy. He sought damages to enable him to live at home with professional carers, his son and dog, arguing that this arrangement would restore his dignity, autonomy, and quality of life.
Lower court decisions
At trial, the Queensland Supreme Court accepted that home care could offer therapeutic benefits but found that the additional $3.8 million to cater for Mr Stewart’s care outside of the institution was unjustifiable. The Court of Appeal upheld this view, applying a cost-benefit analysis to determine reasonableness.
High Court ruling
The High Court unanimously overturned the lower courts, rejecting the narrow cost-benefit approach.
The court held that:
This decision marks a return to first principles and clarifies that plaintiffs are not required to justify every dollar of additional expense with quantifiable health benefits. It reaffirmed the compensatory principle that damages must restore the plaintiff, as far as money can, to the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred.
Broader implications of Stewart
The ruling in Stewart has far-reaching consequences for personal injury litigation in Queensland:
1. Reframing ‘reasonableness’
The decision shifts the legal test for future care damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). Courts must now assess whether the plaintiff’s proposed care arrangement is a reasonable way to address the consequences of the injury, not merely whether it is cost-effective.
2. Increased damages for catastrophically injured claimants
Catastrophic injury cases make up only a small proportion of personal injury cases in Queensland. Catastrophically injured claimants can now seek damages for home-based care, even if it is more expensive than institutional alternatives, provided it aligns with their pre-injury lifestyle and therapeutic needs.
3. Emphasis on individualised assessments
The High Court’s approach underscores the importance of individualised assessments. Factors such as family relationships, pets, and home environment are now central to determining what constitutes reasonable care.
Bird and vicarious liability
As Stewart expanded the scope of damages, Bird v DP (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 41 did the opposite for vicarious liability.
In this case, a Catholic priest abused a child in the 1970s. The diocese was sued, with Bishop Paul Bird named as the defendant. The High Court considered whether the diocese could be held liable for the priest’s actions.
The High Court answered this question in the negative.
The High Court held that vicarious liability in Australia requires a formal employment relationship and cannot simply be a relationship akin to employment. This decision distances the Australian position from that of her counterparts in the UK, Canada, and Ireland. For example, following Hickey v McGowan [2017] IESC (which was also an abuse case), the Irish courts adopt a “close connection” test, similar to that applied in the UK. The courts consider whether or not the wrongful act was closely connected to the role assigned to the defendant. In assessing whether or not the act was closely connected, the courts will examine:
The Irish and UK tests provide for a more sympathetic approach to vicarious liability, particularly in cases of institutional abuse, which often lack a clear employment relationship between the institution and the wrongdoer.
The Victorian government and ACT Parliament have been quick to act to redress this unfairness in their respective states and make provision for vicarious liability to arise from relationships akin to employment, aligning more closely with the approaches of courts in Ireland, the UK, and Canada.
A new era for PI
Personal injury litigation in Queensland is entering a new era. Legislative reforms are streamlining procedures, while judicial decisions, most notably Stewart and Bird, are constantly updating and reshaping the principles that underpin compensation.
The High Court’s reaffirmation of the compensatory principle in Stewart is a watershed moment. It restores dignity to catastrophically injured plaintiffs and ensures that damages reflect not just clinical outcomes, but the full spectrum of human experience.
However, Bird reminds us of the court’s function to apply the law as set by the legislature. Some may argue that this sits uncomfortably against the court’s willingness to develop (or reaffirm) the common law in Stewart; however, it is comforting to see balance quickly restored by some state legislatures.
The year 2025, a year to remember.
John Connellan is a senior associate at Travis Schultz & Partners.
