Case Summary: Jaksa v Sweeny & QBE Insurance [2025] QDC 2

Keywords: personal injury, motor accident, District Court of Queensland, QBE Insurance, right shoulder injury, cervical spine injury, credibility, damages assessment, insurance litigation

By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | July 2025

Subject

Trampoline Injury Claim Overturned - Importance of Proving Causation in Safety Defect Cases Queensland Court Reduces Damages in Car Accident Claim Over Disputed Shoulder Injury    

What Happened

In March 2021, Neza Jaksa was rear-ended while stationary in traffic on Caloundra Road, Queensland. The crash left her with a confirmed neck injury and a reported right shoulder injury which was the subject of contention. Liability for the accident was admitted by the defendant, Kyle Sweeny, and his insurer QBE. The dispute at trial focused on the extent of Jaksa’s injuries and her entitlement to damages - the plaintiff sought damages to nearly $850,000 with the insurer disputing quantum of the matter and that an appropriate sum to be of around $96,500.  

Key Legal Issues

• Was the plaintiff’s alleged right shoulder injury caused by the car crash? 

• To what extent did the injuries impair her ability to work and carry out daily tasks? 

• How should the damages be calculated, particularly given conflicting medical and social media evidence? 

What the Court Decided

Judge Cash of the District Court of Queensland found that whilst Ms. Jaksa suffered a minor neck injury from the collision and failed to prove her claimed right shoulder injury. The very nature of the right shoulder injury had no objective evidence through scans and therefore was subject to acceptance of Ms. Jaksa’s testimony regarding the reported shoulder symptoms which were doubted to be reliable. A series of photos and videos from social media accounts were presented at court a demonstrating inconsistency with respect to the reported severity of pain to her right shoulder and arm. The court awarded her $148,826.49 in damages - substantially less than what the plaintiff claimed. 

Key Findings

• Credibility Concerns: The court found inconsistencies in Jaksa’s testimony, especially in light of social media content (photos and videos) showing her engaging in physical activities allegedly limited by her injuries (e.g., posing on fences, holding fish, performing splits at a staff party). 

• Medical Evidence: The court preferred the objective assessments of the insurer’s experts over the plaintiff’s subjective reports. No radiological evidence supported a shoulder injury. 

• Neck Injury Only: The court accepted that a minor cervical spine injury occurred, warranting a modest award of general damages and lost income.  

Outcome

• General Damages: $8,100 

• Past Economic Loss: $50,000 

• Future Loss of Earnings: $75,000 

• Additional allowances (e.g., care, superannuation, interest): $15,726.49 

• Total Award: $148,826.49 

The court rejected most of the plaintiff’s larger damages claims due to credibility concerns and lack of verifiable evidence. 

Why This Case Matters

This decision highlights how courts scrutinise injury claims - especially when supported mainly by subjective testimony. Plaintiffs must be consistent in their accounts and wary that social media posts can contradict their claims. The ruling reinforces that while liability may be clear, damages depend heavily on the believability and corroboration of the claimed injuries. 

Source

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QDC25-002.pdf