What happened

In February 2015 at Bonnyrigg, the car in which the plaintiff was a passenger was stationary at a red light when the defendants' vehicle struck it from behind and pushed it into the vehicle ahead. She sustained musculoligamentous strains to her neck, both shoulders and lower back, followed by reduced activity, depression and substantial weight gain. Although she had pre-accident attendance and home-environment difficulties, the Court found that pain, treatment demands and depression after the crash materially worsened her education and contributed to her eventual expulsion.

The issues

The issues were the true extent and continuing effect of the accident injuries, including the disputed lower-back injury, the competing medical opinions, and whether disruption to a teenager with no employment history caused a future loss of earning capacity. The Court also had to decide whether a buffer was more appropriate than an arithmetic projection built on an assumed occupation and weekly wage.

The court's decision

The Court accepted that the accident caused neck, shoulder and lower-back injuries, depression, weight gain and a disadvantage when entering the labour market. Because it could not identify the career the plaintiff would probably have pursued, it assessed future economic loss and related superannuation as a AUD 100,000 buffer. The reasons also record AUD 9,000 for future treatment, AUD 10,000 for future domestic assistance and agreed past expenses of AUD 6,508.25, while the operative judgment states AUD 125,008.25. The listed components do not add up to that judgment sum.

Understanding the figures

The operative judgment states historical AUD 125,008.25. The reasons and table list AUD 100,000 for future earnings and superannuation, AUD 9,000 future treatment, AUD 10,000 future paid domestic assistance and AUD 6,508.25 past expenses, whose sum exceeds the ordered amount by AUD 500. No verified correction order is available, so the stated judgment has not been silently adjusted. Past gratuitous assistance was abandoned because the statutory threshold was not met.

What this case shows

The decision shows that a young plaintiff may establish future economic loss without a pre-accident earnings record where the evidence demonstrates a real impairment of earning capacity. It also illustrates a contextual approach to difficult schooling evidence: pre-existing attendance problems were not treated as conclusive, and a buffer reflected both the accident's effect and the uncertainty of the plaintiff's future path.

Why another case may differ

The assessment depended closely on this plaintiff's age, school records, credibility findings and medical evidence; it does not set a standard buffer for other young claimants. It is also a historical decision under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 and does not state current thresholds, caps or the likely outcome of another claim.

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? →