In February 2026, the District Court of Queensland delivered judgment in Ardis-Phasey v Neal & Anor [2026] QDC 25.
The case involved a plaintiff who was injured in a car accident when he was 14 years old. Liability was admitted. This meant the main dispute was not about who caused the accident, but about the assessment of damages.
What Was the Case About?
The plaintiff, Mr Ardis-Phasey, was injured in a car accident on 16 December 2019. He was 14 years old at the time.
The accident was not described as a severe accident. However, he received a heavy blow to his cheek, was briefly knocked unconscious, and was taken to hospital by ambulance.
After being released from hospital, he began to experience pain and discomfort in his lower back area. He attended a doctor about two weeks after the accident and complained of lower back pain.
The plaintiff continued to report lower back pain over time.
The Main Issue
The main issue was the assessment of damages.
The plaintiff’s lower back pain was largely based on his own reporting of symptoms.
The Court noted that back pain can be difficult to prove by clinically observable findings, and that cases involving lower back pain may turn heavily on the credibility and reliability of the person giving evidence.
The Court therefore had to consider whether the plaintiff’s evidence about his ongoing back pain should be accepted.
Credibility and Reliability
The Court accepted the plaintiff as a credible and reliable witness.
The plaintiff was cross-examined about matters including:
- His sporting history;
- Gym work;
- Work history;
- Surveillance footage;
- Activities that appeared inconsistent with his reported pain; and
- His ability to keep working despite symptoms.
The Court found that he was disciplined, truthful, careful and reliable. A significant feature of the decision was that the plaintiff often answered questions in a way that did not necessarily assist his own case. This supported the Court’s assessment of him as a reliable witness.
Ongoing Lower Back Pain
The Court accepted that the plaintiff suffered a musculoligamentous injury to his lower back in the accident.
The Court accepted that the pain started from the day after the accident and had not resolved.
The plaintiff described the pain as sitting at around four out of 10, increasing when aggravated by work, activity or other causes.
The Court accepted that the plaintiff continued to experience ongoing pain and discomfort.
Sport, Gym Work and Daily Activities
A major part of the case involved the plaintiff’s activities after the accident.
He returned to soccer after the accident and later stopped playing, but the Court accepted that he stopped because of the death of his longstanding coach, not because of his back.
He also undertook gym work. The Court did not treat this as undermining his evidence. Instead, the Court accepted that being active was helpful for him, although he sometimes pushed himself too far.
The plaintiff also had a brief period playing rugby league. The Court accepted that this did not undermine his evidence, but showed that he tried activities and learned what was and was not sustainable.
Work History
The plaintiff had worked in several jobs after the accident. One important job was house-washing, which involved physical work.
The plaintiff concealed his back problems from his employer until he had worked long enough to prove his worth as an employee. He was considered a good worker, but the evidence showed that some tasks aggravated his back.
Roof-washing was a particular issue because it involved standing at an angle on pitched roofs. His work colleagues gave evidence that they would try to swap tasks with him so he could avoid that kind of work.
The Court considered this evidence important because it showed both:
- The plaintiff’s determination to keep working; and
- The real limitations caused by his back symptoms in heavier manual work.
Costco Work and Surveillance Footage
The plaintiff later worked at Costco, which involved lighter duties.
Surveillance footage had been obtained shortly before the trial while he was working inside Costco and while he was in another shop.
The Court considered the surveillance footage. Rather than undermining the plaintiff’s case, the footage tended to support his evidence. It showed him doing minor back stretches regularly during his shift.
The Court considered that the footage was consistent with his evidence that his back symptoms were persistent and present during work.
The Court also raised concerns about the way the surveillance footage had been obtained, including whether filming inside shop premises without consent may involve trespass.
Future Economic Loss
Future economic loss was the most significant part of the case.
The Court considered how to assess future earning capacity for a young person.
The plaintiff was only 20 years old by the time of the trial. The Court noted that it can be difficult to assess future economic loss for a young person because career paths can change significantly between youth and adulthood.
The Court cautioned against assuming that what a young person is doing at age 20 will necessarily represent their future working life.
The Court considered that the plaintiff liked outdoor and active work. The Court found that, without the injury, he was likely to have worked in manual, skilled or semi-skilled work, including trade or similar work.
The Court accepted that the back injury may restrict or slow him in the kind of work he appeared suited to pursue. The Court considered that the injury affected his capacity to work quickly, intensely and for long hours in physically active work.
The Court also accepted that the plaintiff had a strong work ethic and real potential to succeed in working life.
Section 55 of the Civil Liability Act
The Court considered section 55 of the Civil Liability Act 2003, which deals with earnings that cannot be precisely calculated.
The Court found that a precise calculation by reference to a defined weekly loss was not possible for this young plaintiff.
Instead, the Court assessed future economic loss as a global amount, having regard to the plaintiff’s age, work history, potential impairment and the other factors considered in the judgment. The Court assessed future economic loss at $160,000.
Total Damages
The total award was $182,800.
Costs
The Court also dealt with costs. The plaintiff had made a formal offer to settle under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 for $150,000.
The defendant did not dispute that the plaintiff had beaten that offer. The Court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs on the standard basis up to 2 February 2026, and on the indemnity basis from 3 February 2026.
Practical Takeaway
The key takeaway from this case is that ongoing pain may be considered even where it is difficult to prove by objective clinical findings.
Credibility, consistency and work history may be very important.
The decision also shows that a person may continue working, playing sport or exercising while still being affected by injury. Those activities do not necessarily defeat a claim if the evidence explains how and why the person continued those activities despite symptoms.
For young plaintiffs, the assessment of future economic loss may be especially difficult. The Court may need to consider not only the person’s current job, but their likely future capacity, interests, work ethic and the kinds of work they may have pursued.
The information on this page is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.