High Court of Australia Clarifies Reasonableness Test for Assessing Common Law Damages

In a recent decision, the High Court of Australia has clarified the test of reasonableness for the purpose of assessing common law damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The ruling, in Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34, has significant implications for plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving catastrophic injuries.

The plaintiff, a 63-year-old man, sustained a perforated bowel, cardiac arrest, stroke, and brain damage in 2016 after receiving treatment at Redcliffe Hospital in Queensland. He was subsequently discharged to a nursing home and sued the Health Service in relation to his injury. The trial judge and Queensland Court of Appeal judges had erred in their assessment of reasonableness by weighing up the health benefits of the plaintiff living at home against the very significant additional cost of nursing care at home.

The High Court unanimously held that the proper question to be asked is whether the plaintiff's choice (to live at home) was a reasonable response to repair the consequences of the tort (and put him back into the position he was in prior to the defendant's negligence) and whether the cost claimed was proved to be a reasonable cost of that response. The Court noted that the assessment of reasonableness is not confined to balancing only the health and cost benefits against each other, but also takes into account the ordinary nature of living in one's own home and the plaintiff's pre-injury circumstances.

Key Takeaways:

• The High Court clarified that the test of reasonableness for common law damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) requires an assessment of whether the plaintiff's choice to incur the expense of care at home is a reasonable response to repair the consequences of the tort.
• The Court held that the assessment of reasonableness is not confined to balancing only the health and cost benefits against each other, but also takes into account the ordinary nature of living in one's own home and the plaintiff's pre-injury circumstances.
• The Court emphasized that the test of reasonableness is not about proportionality, but rather restoration, where damages will be considered reasonable if the costs associated assist in restoring the plaintiff to the position they had been in prior to the tort being committed.
• The Court's decision offers plaintiffs and defendants clarity on the question of reasonableness where the plaintiff's pre-injury position can be readily assessed and quantified, such as living in one's own home as against having to live in a nursing home.
• Establishing reasonableness may be more difficult in cases where damages are sought for losses claimed on a hypothetical basis or where the outcome of an award of damages would place the plaintiff in a position that was not consistent with the ordinary course of their pre-injury life.

Statistics:

• The plaintiff's life expectancy at the time of trial was 5 years.
• The cost of care at home was assessed at $5m, which is 5 times the cost of the nursing home.
• The award of general damages was limited to $284,700 under the statutory regime in Queensland.
• The High Court's decision is significant for cases involving catastrophic injuries and clarifies the test of reasonableness for common law damages.

Sources:

• Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34
• Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563
• Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)