A recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision has considered the approach taken in assessing common law general damages in claims for personal injury, including whether jury decisions, interstate awards and defamation cases should be considered.
The conclusion? That consideration is to be had of community standards, that pain and suffering has the same effect whether suffered in Sydney or Brisbane, and that ultimately a comparative but disciplined approach should be taken when assessing common law general damages.
In issue
His Honour considered the following matters with respect to an assessment of common law general damages, being:
- whether weight should be accorded to general damages awarded in:
- jury decisions,
- interstate decisions, and
- defamation cases, and
- whether a loss of capacity to provide domestic caregiving services is compensable as part of general damages.
The background
The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma on 31 August 2021 and died when he was 88 on 1 March 2022. The claim for general damages was brought by the plaintiff’s estate.
Liability was not in issue and the principal issue related to the value of general damages. The plaintiff claimed $800,000 in general damages, while the defendant submitted that $200,000 was more appropriate.
The Court considered a number of matters but took particular note regarding the consideration of interstate cases, jury decisions and defamation cases when assessing general damages.
The decision at trial
The plaintiff was awarded $420,000 in general damages. His Honour accepted that general damages are awarded to a plaintiff who has suffered personal injury to recompense for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life suffered by the plaintiff.
Jury decisions
Behind the plaintiff’s claim of $800,000 was a reliance on the only two previous awards for general damages concerning mesothelioma in Queensland being jury awards. His Honour accepted the plaintiff’s submissions, noting that although a jury verdict is inscrutable, it does not mean it is not comparable. His Honour considered that consideration of jury verdicts should inform the Court as to the level of damages the community considers appropriate.
Interstate decisions
His Honour, in observing the statements made in King1 and ZAB2, found that a court should have regard to interstate decisions when it comes to the assessment of general damages, noting that they are relevant when it comes to assessing both fairness and moderation. He found that pain and suffering has the same effect whether suffered in Sydney or Brisbane, and there is ultimately one common law of Australia.
Defamation decisions
His Honour accepted that there must be a rational relationship between awards for non-economic loss in defamation and personal injury cases. Whilst reputational harm may not equate to a personal injury, defamation cases can provide guidance for general damages awards in personal injury claims and vice versa.
Care of the plaintiff’s wife
His Honour applied the considerations in CSR Ltd v Eddy3 in accepting that the loss of impairment in caring for his wife may be compensated as part of the general damages award.
Implications for you
Previously, the approach was taken that awards for damages in other states and territories set a standard which did not prevail in Queensland and that the role of a court was to assess the community standards in Queensland, therefore reflecting local variations within the state4. This decision illustrates the need to consider not only awards made in comparable claims around the rest of the country, but jury verdicts and defamation cases when assessing the quantum of common law general damages in a personal injury claim.
Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 16
1 Amaca Pty Ltd v King [2011] VSCA 447; (2011) 35 VR 280 at [175-176]
2 ZAB v ZWM [2021] TASSC 64 at [122]
3 CSR Ltd v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; (2005) 226 CLR 1.
4 Amaca Pty Ltd v Werfel [2020] SASCFC 125; (2020) 138 SASR 295
