What happened

AX cut his left big toe on a broken tile at the council's pool in 2007 and required stitches. He alleged that being unable to play football afterwards caused psychological injury. Records showed that he had already stopped playing before the accident, while other injuries and personal difficulties complicated the claimed causal connection.

The issues

Breach concerning the cut toe was admitted, but continuing disability and a recognised psychiatric illness remained disputed. The Court examined the experts' factual assumptions, whether the pool incident caused the claimed condition, and foreseeability of psychiatric illness in a child of normal fortitude suffering this injury.

The court's decision

The Court was not satisfied that the alleged psychiatric condition had been established and found that, even if the alternative diagnoses were accepted, causation by the pool incident was not proved. It also rejected the mental-harm duty under s 32. Recovery was confined to agreed expenses for the toe injury, with costs reserved.

Understanding the figures

The actual judgment was historical AUD $305.55 for agreed medical expenses relating to the cut toe. The larger psychological-injury claim and alternative assessment were not awarded. Costs were reserved.

What this case shows

Admitted responsibility for a physical injury does not automatically extend to every later psychological difficulty. Expert conclusions must rest on an accurate history, and diagnosis, causation and the statutory duty requirement each need attention.

Why another case may differ

The decision is not a general rule that a minor injury cannot cause psychiatric harm in a child. It applies the Civil Liability Act 2002 to the particular evidence of a 2007 accident and expressly considers the child's age. The published pseudonyms AX and ZX are retained and sensitive personal background is omitted.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →