High Court Rules on Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury Claims
In the 2025 High Court decision Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34, the court addressed how damages are to be assessed in personal injury claims. The court found that compensation should aim to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence, and that what is reasonable should be assessed based on what is closest to the person’s pre-injury circumstances. This page outlines the facts of the case and why it is significant.
Facts of the case
Michael Stewart, a 63-year-old man, was a well-known artist, who lived independently with his brother. He lived an active lifestyle, engaging with his art practice and community. His son and dog often stayed with him.
In 2016, he sought treatment at Redcliffe Hospital in Brisbane for nausea and abdominal pain. The hospital treated him negligently and as a result, Stewart suffered bowel perforations, sepsis, cardiac arrest, and a stroke, resulting in significant brain damage, paralysis, and the need for a colostomy bag.
Following the injury, Stewart was transferred to a nursing home, where he was miserable and where his physical and mental health deteriorated due to a lack of therapy and exercise.
Stewart sought compensation for the cost of nursing and medical care to enable him to live in his own home, as he had before the injury, where his son and dog could stay. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should remain in the nursing home, where care could be provided more cheaply and that damages should be limited to these costs.
Legal proceedings
The Supreme Court of Queensland awarded Stewart damages of $2.19 million, which included the costs of receiving institutional care and additional costs for external care assistants to provide more frequent therapy and exercise. However, the court did not grant compensation for the cost of home-based care as the plaintiff sought, finding that those costs were unreasonable.
Stewart appealed against this decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the Supreme Court’s decision.
Stewart then appealed to the High Court of Australia, on the basis that the lower courts had erred in assessing the reasonableness of his choice to receive care at home.
The High Court’s decision
The High Court unanimously allowed Stewart’s appeal, finding that the approach taken by the lower courts in assessing reasonableness was erroneous. The court had assessed this purely by balancing the health benefits of home care against the additional cost involved. The High Court found that the plaintiff’s choice to live in a home setting, as he had before the injuries, was also an important factor. It found that his choice was reasonable and that the defendant should pay the costs of providing care in a home setting.
Implications
This decision has significant implications for personal injury claims, especially those entailing catastrophic injuries.
The decision clarifies that the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s choice of care setting should be assessed in the context of restoring them to their pre-injury position, rather than solely considering the cost of care against the health benefits.
The case also revisits the principles established in Sharman v Evans (1977), where the High Court discussed the “touchstone of reasonableness” in assessing compensation for nursing and medical care following negligence.
In this decision, the High Court reaffirmed the compensatory principle outlined in the earlier case and emphasized that the assessment of damages should consider the plaintiff’s legitimate choices in response to their condition.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.