What happened
During a full-body massage on 5 October 2023, the plaintiff experienced forceful twisting of her ankle and immediate pain. Her companion corroborated her limp and complaint, and medical and physiotherapy evidence supported the ligament injury and its connection to the manipulation. The masseuse was unqualified, and the business ultimately accepted vicarious liability for its employee's acts.
The issues
The issues were whether forceful ankle manipulation breached reasonable care, whether it caused the injury and how the recovery outlook affected damages. The masseuse did not give evidence, and the defendant called no contrary medical evidence. The plaintiff also pleaded an alternative claim under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law.
The court's decision
Accepting the plaintiff's account and uncontradicted expert evidence, the Court found breach under s 5B of the Civil Liability Act and established causation. The inference from not calling the masseuse reinforced the accepted evidence rather than supplying the whole case. It did not need to decide the alternative consumer-law claim and ordered damages, interest and costs.
Understanding the figures
Judgment was entered for AUD 75,182.50 in 2025: past expenses of AUD 5,000.00, future expenses of AUD 7,158.50, a future economic-loss buffer of AUD 10,000.00, past domestic assistance of AUD 33,024.00 and future domestic assistance of AUD 20,000.00. Non-economic loss was nil, with interest and costs ordered separately. The plaintiff's higher claims are not included as awarded amounts.
What this case shows
Liability rested on evidence connecting a particular harmful manipulation with precautions that would have avoided it. The case went beyond an abstract concern about qualifications or training to address the force used and its causal effect. Even where liability is established, expected improvement after surgery and statutory thresholds can substantially limit the recoverable damages.
Why another case may differ
This was a fact-specific negligence decision about injury during a massage service, not a finding of liability for every report of pain after massage. The absence of contrary medical evidence and evidence from the masseuse mattered. The 12% assessment against a most extreme case concerned non-economic loss, not whole person impairment, and the alternative consumer-law cause of action was not decided.
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? →