By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | Oct 2025
This case summary reviews Ford v Baker & Another [2025] QDC 43, a District Court of Queensland decision concerning damages assessment after a moped and ute collision, personal injuries, quantum, general damages, ISV assessment, gratuitous care under s 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), special damages, and preexisting conditions.
Case Subject
Ford v Baker & Another [2025] QDC 43 - Damages assessment after a moped and ute collision (liability admitted)
Background: What Happened in Ford v Baker & Another
- On 10 October 2020, the plaintiff (Mr Gregory Allan Ford) was riding a moped east on Nerang Connection Road when the first defendant (Ms Amanda Renee Baker), driving a Ford Ranger westbound, turned right into Nerang Street and collided with him. Liability for the accident was admitted; the trial concerned only the nature and extent of injuries and the quantum of damages.
- The matter was heard at the District Court of Queensland (Southport) on 24–25 March 2025 and judgment was delivered on 17 April 2025 by Holliday KC DCJ.
Key Legal Issues in the Personal Injury Claim
- Classification and assessment of multiple injuries under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA) and Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) (CLR), including selection of the dominant injury and an appropriate Injury Scale Value (ISV).
- Whether the plaintiff’s evidence sufficiently substantiated a psychological injury.
- Whether claimed past and future care satisfied the threshold in s 59 CLA (gratuitous services).
- The extent of special damages (past and future) and whether claimed expenses related solely to the accident, having regard to pre-existing conditions.
What the District Court Decided
- Orders
-
- Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $32,807.96.
- Parties to be heard as to costs.
- Damages breakdown (for ease of reference)
-
- General damages: $28,700 (ISV 15).
- Special damages (past + future): $4,107.96, comprising:
-
- Past: Medicare $857.96 and a global pharmaceutical allowance $250.
-
- Future: Ankle bracing $2,000 and a global pharmaceutical allowance $1,000.
4. No claim for economic loss and none awarded.
Key Findings on Injury, Evidence and Damages
- Injuries proven: (a) fracture to left lower leg with ankle dislocation; (b) right thigh soft tissue injury; (c) fracture to right little finger.
- Psychological injury not proven: the plaintiff gave no evidence and called no expert on this issue; claim rejected.
- Dominant injury: the ankle injury fell within CLR item 142 (Serious ankle injury; ISV 11–20); overall ISV fixed at 15 to reflect all injuries.
- Orthopaedic evidence accepted: the Court accepted Dr Brett Halliday’s report, including 12% WPI (2% finger; 10% lower limb) and the opinion that no further surgery was indicated.
- Credibility concerns: the plaintiff’s evidence was found to be internally inconsistent and inconsistent with what was self-reported to the experts and at the hospital following the subject incident.
- Preexisting conditions significant: longstanding left sided sciatica and peripheral neuropathy were not aggravated by the accident; they explained many functional limitations and medication use.
- s 59 CLA threshold not met: alleged gratuitous care (past and future) failed on necessity, causation (“solely out of the injury”), and the 6 hrs/week for 6 monthsthreshold; expert OT evidence (Ms Evans and Ms White) preferred.
- Limited future expenses allowed: periodic ankle bracing and a modest pharmaceutical sum were allowed; other claimed therapy/surgery/assessment costs lacked evidentiary support.
Outcome of the Claim
- Applying CLA ss 61–62 and the CLR, the Court identified the ankle as the dominant injury and, guided by principles for multiple injuries (including the approach discussed in Allwood v Wilson), assessed an overall ISV of 15 to reflect pain, loss of amenities and the combined impact of all proven injuries.
- The Court preferred the unchallenged orthopaedic evidence of Dr Halliday on diagnosis, permanence, and treatment (no further surgery indicated), and adopted his impairment assessments.
- Claims for psychological injury and expansive future treatment/therapy were not substantiated by evidence; the plaintiff called no experts, and aspects of his oral testimony were inconsistent.
- On care, contemporaneous medical and OT evidence showed the plaintiff’s pre-accident limitations and that any assistance was either short-term, already funded under rehabilitation, or related to preexisting conditions; the s 59 criteria were therefore not met.
- The Court allowed modest, specific future outlays (ankle brace; pharmaceuticals), disallowed unproven items, and declined economic loss (none pleaded; medical history indicated longstanding incapacity).
Why This Personal Injury Case Matters
- Evidence matters, especially for quantum: Where liability is admitted, expert evidence is still critical to prove psychological injury, ongoing treatment needs and care. Without it, claims are vulnerable.
- Strict s 59 CLA threshold: Courts will closely examine necessity, causation and duration for gratuitous care. Pre-accident assistance or comorbidities can defeat the claim even when injuries are significant.
- Preexisting conditions & credibility: Detailed GP records and consistent self reports are pivotal. Preexisting pathology can limit recoverable heads of damage and inform the ISV selection.
- Practical takeaway: Even with a “serious ankle injury,” damages can be modest if treatment is largely complete, future need is limited, and care claims fail the required threshold.