What happened

On 28 May 2008, McGlen-McLeod fell through rotten verandah boards while collecting washing at her rented home. The owners admitted breach of duty, but disputed which injuries the fall had caused. Early medical records referred to the left leg, while she gave evidence of ongoing right leg and back injuries arising from the same incident.

The issues

The dispute concerned which leg went through the boards and whether the continuing symptoms were caused by the fall. It required assessment of medical notes, histories supplied to experts, surveillance footage and the claimant’s explanations together.

The court's decision

The trial judge accepted only a resolving left leg injury and awarded A$600 for earnings loss and A$100 for expenses. On 9 November 2012, the Court of Appeal held that the claimant’s testimony and explanations of the footage had not been adequately addressed and that gaps in medical records had been overemphasised. It set aside the A$700 judgment and ordered a new trial on causation and damages, leaving the existing costs orders undisturbed.

Understanding the figures

The 2011 A$700 comprised A$600 for earnings loss and A$100 for expenses, but was set aside on appeal in 2012. Neither that sum nor the larger hypothetical assessments in the trial reasons is a final recovery. The appeal ordered costs against the owners but did not determine replacement damages.

What this case shows

The litigation shows that inconsistencies with early clinical notes do not automatically resolve a factual dispute. The appeal stressed the need to evaluate the claimant’s explanations of activity seen on surveillance, which could not itself reveal whether she was experiencing pain.

Why another case may differ

This entry describes the trial and verified appeal in a residential premises claim where breach was admitted. The trial injury and credibility findings must not be presented as final, and the appeal did not establish every claimed injury or fix replacement damages. The eventual amount after the ordered retrial is not established by the sources reviewed.

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? →