Keywords: District Court of Queensland; Southport; Holliday KC DCJ; Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld); Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld); personal injury; motor vehicle accident; bicycle collision; contributory negligence 25%; credibility; neck injury C5/6 disc protrusion; loss of cervical lordosis; lumbar spine softtissue injury (1% WPI); minor head injury; psychiatric injury (past adjustment disorder); ISV 12; s 55 CLA global future economic loss; special damages; future treatment; future care.
By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | Sep 2025
Subject
Cabato v Paltridge & Anor [2025] QDC 59 - Damages assessment after bicycle–car collision (25% contributory negligence)
What Happened
- On 29 March 2017 at Palm Beach, the plaintiff (Mr Cabato) was riding a bicycle when he collided with the first defendant’s vehicle. Liability was admitted, with the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent. The proceeding therefore concerned quantum only under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
- The matter was heard at the District Court at Southport before Holliday KC DCJ, delivered 21 May 2025
Key Legal Issues
- Which injuries were caused by the accident and their extent, including the neck, lumbar spine, psychiatric injury, knees and head
- Appropriate general damages (ISV) and whether an uplift was warranted for multiple injuries
- Whether the plaintiff proved past economic loss and, under s 55 of the Act, a global allowance for future economic loss
- Whether special damages, future treatment, and future paid care were justified on the evidence
What the Court Decided
- Judgment for the plaintiff: $73,663.91
Damages breakdown (before 25% reduction):
- General damages (ISV 12): $19,770.00
- Special damages (past): $1,642.00
- Future treatment: $8,386.55
- Future care and assistance: $3,420.00
- Future economic loss (incl. superannuation): $65,000.00
- Total: $98,218.55 → less 25% ($24,554.64) = $73,663.91
Key Findings
- Credibility: The judge stated, “I do not consider that the plaintiff was a credible and reliable witness”, preferring objective medical and contemporaneous records over inconsistent selfreports. Consideration was given to the following relevant factors:
-
- Lack of complaint of symptoms relevant to the claim to ambulance at the scene and Gold Coast University Hospital on initial attendance;
- The plaintiff saw medical practitioners between the accident and 20 January 2020 but did not complain of any symptoms from the car accident;
- First complaint to a medical practitioner followed consult with solicitors;
- Inconsistencies and ongoing lack of complaint to general practitioners and others even following legal advice;
- Inconsistencies in terms of reporting to expert witnesses and to the court in submissions;
- Social media posts being inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claims.
- Injuries:
-
- Neck: Injury to the cervical spine accepted, with disc protrusion at C5/6 and loss of lordosis causally linked to the accident; symptoms not constant and manageable with Panadol/Nurofen
- Lumbar spine: Ongoing softtissue pain accepted (full movement), but the lumbar disc protrusion not causally connected; 1% WPI adopted (Dr Khursandi)
- Head: Minor head injury/concussion only; negligible ongoing effect
- Psychiatric: Adjustment disorder assessed in 2020 (PIRS 5%) but by 2022 no current DSM5 diagnosis (Dr Murphy); limited weight for ongoing impact
- Knees: Abrasions only, with no ongoing pain accepted
- Headaches & leftsided symptoms: Headaches not accepted; leftsided episodic symptoms rejected as unsupported and inconsistent with activities
- General damages (ISV): Item 88 (neck) as dominant injury, uplift for multiple injuries to ISV 12 → $19,770
- Past economic loss: No award - insufficient proof the accident delayed employment with the evidence of earnings being inconsistent
- Future economic loss: Global $65,000 (incl. super) under s 55, reflecting small weekly impact over working life and labourmarket disadvantage for a manual worker with manageable neck/back symptoms
- Special damages: Allowed chemist ($500) and GP attendances ($1,142); MRI (medicolegal) and travel disallowed → $1,642
- Future treatment: $4,111.05 for analgesics (halving the claim) + $4,275.50 global allowance (possible limited physio/psych support if needed) → $8,386.55; counselling not awarded; injections abandoned
- Future care: $3,420, allowing 3 hours twice per year over life (half the plaintiff’s alternative approach), given no current paidcare need
Outcome
- The Court anchored findings in objective medical signs and contemporaneous records, giving reduced weight to symptom reports where the plaintiff’s credibility was in doubt(e.g., lack of early complaints despite frequent GP visits; first accidentrelated complaint only after consulting solicitors)
- For general damages, the Court treated the neck injury (C5/6 protrusion and loss of lordosis) as dominant, placed the lumbar and other minor injuries in context, and applied a modest uplift to ISV 12, consistent with the Regulation and comparative authorities cited in submissions
- On economic loss, applying s 55 CLA and authorities like Medlin and McCarthy, the Court required proof of diminished earning capacity productive of (or likely to be productive of) financial loss. It refused past loss as speculative, but accepted a risk of future loss given the plaintiff’s manual roles, need to manage symptoms, and possible aggravationsover a long working life; it adopted a transparent methodology (approx. $60/week for 41 years at 5% tables) to reach $65,000 (incl. super)
- For special damages, treatment and care, the Court confined awards to substantiated needs and probable future requirements, trimming claims unsupported by treatment history (e.g., no counselling; no separate physio program) and recognising only limited domestic assistance in the future
- Final orders reflected the above quantum, less the agreed 25% contributory negligence, with standard costs directions
Why This Case Matters
- Credit and contemporaneity drive quantum: Detailed analysis of late reporting, inconsistent selfreports and socialmediainconsistent activities shows how credibility can significantly reduce heads of damage in Queensland motor accident claims
- Dominantinjury ISV with uplift: Selecting the neck injury (Item 88) as dominant and giving a measured uplift to ISV 12 demonstrates a careful application of the Regulation where there are multiple minor injuries
- Section 55 methodology: The Court models a clear, stated method for global future economic loss for a young, manual worker with manageable symptoms, while rejecting speculative past loss
- Awards for evidencebased treatment and care: Future treatment and care were allowed only to the extent supported by history and probability; an approach practitioners can expect where actual treatment has been minimal