Bullock v Wraight [2026] QCA 176
How can surveillance evidence and concerns about a plaintiff’s self-reporting affect the assessment of damages in a personal injury claim?
In Bullock v Wraight [2026] QCA 176, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered a challenge to the assessment of damages following a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, but the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries remained disputed.
At trial, surveillance footage, social media material, medical evidence, and other objective records affected the primary judge’s assessment of the plaintiff’s evidence about her ongoing symptoms and limitations. The Court of Appeal found no sufficient basis to disturb those findings and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
What happened?
Ms Bullock was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 9 December 2021 when her car was struck by a vehicle driven by Mr Wraight and insured by AAI Limited, trading as Suncorp Insurance.
Liability for the accident was admitted. The dispute at trial concerned the injuries caused by the accident and the amount of damages to be awarded. Ms Bullock claimed more than $510,000 in damages.
The District Court accepted that she had suffered cervical spine, shoulder, thoracic, and psychiatric injuries. However, the primary judge found that her physical injuries had resolved by November 2022 and that only the psychiatric injury remained ongoing. The final judgment was $34,858.27.
Why was credibility important?
The primary judge considered that the assessment of the claim largely depended on Ms Bullock’s credibility and reliability.
Although the judge generally regarded her as a witness of truth, she did not accept aspects of Ms Bullock’s evidence about the extent and duration of her ongoing symptoms. The judge found that she had exaggerated the longevity and extent of those symptoms, particularly as they related to future earning capacity.
That assessment was informed by several sources of evidence, including surveillance footage, social media material, employment and business records, medical evidence, and evidence concerning her driving and other activities.
The Court of Appeal emphasised the restraint required before an appellate court interferes with findings that are materially affected by a trial judge’s assessment of a witness’s credibility and reliability.
What was the significance of the surveillance evidence?
Surveillance footage was introduced during Ms Bullock’s cross-examination.
The footage showed her undertaking activities including climbing a fence, carrying objects, and moving her shoulder, neck, and spine without apparent restriction. The primary judge considered aspects of the footage inconsistent with the level of physical limitation described in her evidence.
The surveillance also affected the competing medical evidence.
How did this affect the damages assessment?
The District Court awarded damages for general damages, special damages, some past economic loss associated with farm labour, and future treatment expenses.
However, no damages were awarded for loss of income after November 2022, future earning capacity, ongoing farm labour costs, or past or future commercial cleaning assistance.
The Court of Appeal explained that the assessment of personal injury damages frequently involves estimation and evaluative judgment. An appellate court does not substitute the amount it would itself have awarded merely because it may have reached a different assessment. Appellate intervention requires an identified error of the relevant kind.
What about the injury scale value?
Ms Bullock also challenged the assessment of her general damages.
The primary judge had treated the shoulder injury as the dominant injury and ultimately assessed an ISV of 6 for the multiple injuries. The Court of Appeal considered there was some merit in an argument that the statutory definition of “dominant injury” may not have been correctly applied.
However, the Court was not satisfied that any possible error was sufficiently material to justify granting leave to appeal. On the primary judge’s factual findings, the applicable cervical spine category may in any event have carried a lower ISV range than the minor shoulder injury category used at trial.
The outcome
The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms Bullock’s application for leave to appeal and ordered her to pay the costs of the application.
The District Court’s judgment therefore remained undisturbed.
Key takeaways
- Credibility and reliability can be particularly important where the assessment of injury, disability, care, and economic loss depends substantially on a plaintiff’s description of ongoing symptoms.
- Surveillance and other objective evidence may be considered alongside a plaintiff’s evidence and medical evidence when determining the nature and extent of ongoing impairment.
- An expert opinion may carry less weight if the factual assumptions underlying that opinion are not established at trial.
- Where new evidence potentially affects the assumptions underlying a party’s expert opinion, the party relying on that expert bears the forensic risk of not asking the expert to address it.
- Appellate courts exercise restraint before disturbing factual findings materially influenced by a trial judge’s assessment of credibility and reliability.
- The assessment of personal injury damages involves evaluative judgment, and disagreement with the amount awarded is not itself sufficient to establish appealable error.
This case note provides general information about a court decision and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any matter depends on its particular facts, evidence, and applicable law.