What happened

In 2016, a glass dropped by a waiter shattered and injured the plaintiff's thumb tendon, requiring surgery. She had received notice of redundancy the previous day. She alleged that continuing hand and psychological symptoms restricted work and daily activities, but the histories provided to clinicians did not consistently match her job-seeking and employment history.

The issues

The central question was whether ongoing hand symptoms, loss of earning capacity and care needs were caused by the accident. Competing expert reports were tendered without oral evidence or a joint opinion, requiring close examination of their reasoning and factual foundations.

The court's decision

The Court accepted that the accident caused the thumb injury and a short-lived adjustment disorder. It did not accept the claimed connection to reduced grip strength or long-term work incapacity and rejected earnings loss, commercial care and future expenses. Judgment was entered for AUD 47,868.45 in non-economic loss and past expenses.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD 47,868.45 award comprised AUD 43,000 non-economic loss and AUD 4,868.45 conceded past expenses. It included no award for past or future earnings loss, commercial care or future expenses.

What this case shows

An expert conclusion does not itself prove the facts on which it depends. The Court may give less weight to an unexplained opinion or one based on an inaccurate history. Even where liability is accepted, causation and need must be proved for each claimed head of loss.

Why another case may differ

This damages assessment applied the Civil Liability Act 2002 to a 2016 accident. It does not establish that a claim invariably fails without cross-examination of experts. The non-economic loss assessment reflected a defendant's concession and is not a standard award for comparable hand injuries.

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? →