Keywords: motor vehicle accident compensation, personal injury damages, credibility, social media evidence, Queensland District Court
By Honest Grace Legal | Motor Vehicle Injury Law | May 2025
A recent Queensland District Court decision offers a pointed reminder of how credibility and consistency can make or break a personal injury claim—even when liability is admitted.
In Jaksa v Sweeny & QBE Insurance [2025] QDC 2, the court grappled with a common yet contentious scenario: a rear-end car accident, admitted fault, and conflicting claims about the extent of the injuries.
The Accident: Stopped in Traffic, Rear-Ended
On 25 March 2021, Neza Jaksa was stationary in traffic on Caloundra Road when her car was rear-ended by a Toyota Hilux driven by Kyle Sweeny. Liability was admitted. The matter proceeded solely on the issue of damages—specifically, whether the plaintiff’s right shoulder injury was caused by the accident, and what compensation should follow.
Jaksa sought nearly $850,000 in compensation, alleging persistent pain in her neck and shoulder had severely limited her work and lifestyle. The CTP insurer, QBE Insurance, contested the extent of her injury—particularly the alleged right shoulder injury—offering approximately $96,500.
The Legal Issues Before the Court
- Was the right shoulder injury caused by the motor vehicle accident?
- Could the court accept the plaintiff’s account of her symptoms?
- What was the appropriate level of personal injury compensation?
The Decision: Evidence Versus Instagram
Judge Cash DCJ found that while Ms Jaksa had sustained a minor neck injury, she had not proven the pleaded right shoulder injury.
What tipped the scales?
“There were several occasions across more than two years when Ms Jaksa performed movements with her right arm in a manner inconsistent with her claims.” – Cash DCJ
Photos and videos from Jaksa’s social media accounts showed her:
- Holding a fish with her arm extended overhead
- Performing the splits at a Christmas party
- Dancing and mopping vigorously
- Sitting on a fence post shortly after the crash
Each of these acts contradicted her claims of disabling pain. The court was also troubled by:
- Inconsistent statements to a massage therapist
- Contradictions in cross-examination
- Overstated descriptions of pain not corroborated by objective medical evidence
Damages Awarded: A Fraction of the Claim
The court awarded $148,826.49, broken down as follows:
- General damages (neck injury): $8,100
- Past economic loss: $50,000
- Future earning capacity loss: $75,000
- Superannuation, care, interest, and statutory sums: remainder
Key Takeaways for Personal Injury Claimants
This case reinforces some vital truths for motor vehicle accident compensation claims in Queensland:
- Consistency is king – your story, symptoms, and actions must align
- Social media is evidence – assume the court will see it
- Objective testing matters – inclinometers > anecdotal pain
- Minor injuries attract minor compensation – especially under ISV guidelines