"There is but one common law in Australia": the broader impacts of Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd

Barry Nilsson is an award-winning national law firm of more than 550 staff, with offices in all six states. Our Insurance & Health and Family Law, Wills & Estates practices combine extensive industry knowledge with local expertise to deliver trusted, practical advice. We partner with our clients, evolving our services to meet changing needs, while fostering a strong internal culture that supports our people and community. Our Insurance & Health team includes 250+ specialist insurance lawyers advising across all major lines of insurance and a broad range of industries. From policy drafting and claims management to legislative and regulatory advice, we work alongside insurance clients and stakeholders to tailor strategies designed to achieve the best outcomes. Our Family Law, Wills & Estates team provides a full range of family law and estate planning services for local, international, and expatriate clients. We combine expertise with empathy to deliver advice tailored to individual circumstances.

Explore Firm Details

This decision illustrates the need to consider not only awards made in comparable claims around the rest of the country, but jury verdicts and defamation cases when assessing the quantum of common law general damages in a personal injury claim.

Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Article Insights

Charlotte Benjamin’s articles from Barry Nilsson are most popular:

within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
in Africa
with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services, Consumer Industries and Law Firm industries

A recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision has considered the approach taken in assessing common law general damages in claims for personal injury, including whether jury decisions, interstate awards and defamation cases should be considered.

The conclusion? That consideration is to be had of community standards, that pain and suffering has the same effect whether suffered in Sydney or Brisbane, and that ultimately a comparative but disciplined approach should be taken when assessing common law general damages.

In issue

His Honour considered the following matters with respect to an assessment of common law general damages, being:

whether weight should be accorded to general damages awarded in:
1. jury decisions,
2. interstate decisions, and
3. defamation cases, and
whether a loss of capacity to provide domestic caregiving services is compensable as part of general damages.

The background

The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma on 31 August 2021 and died when he was 88 on 1 March 2022. The claim for general damages was brought by the plaintiff's estate.

Liability was not in issue and the principal issue related to the value of general damages. The plaintiff claimed $800,000 in general damages, while the defendant submitted that $200,000 was more appropriate.

The Court considered a number of matters but took particular note regarding the consideration of interstate cases, jury decisions and defamation cases when assessing general damages.

The decision at trial

The plaintiff was awarded $420,000 in general damages. His Honour accepted that general damages are awarded to a plaintiff who has suffered personal injury to recompense for the pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life suffered by the plaintiff.

Jury decisions

Behind the plaintiff's claim of $800,000 was a reliance on the only two previous awards for general damages concerning mesothelioma in Queensland being jury awards. His Honour accepted the plaintiff's submissions, noting that although a jury verdict is in scrutable, it does not mean it is not comparable. His Honour considered that consideration of jury verdicts should inform the Court as to the level of damages the community considers appropriate.

Interstate decisions

His Honour, in observing the statements made in King¹and ZAB ², found that a court should have regard to interstate decisions when it comes to the assessment of general damages, noting that they are relevant when it comes to assessing both fairness and moderation. He found that pain and suffering has the same effect whether suffered in Sydney or Brisbane,and there is ultimately one common law of Australia.

Defamation decisions

His Honour accepted that there must be a rational relationship between awards for non-economic loss in defamation and personal injury cases. Whilst reputational harm may not equate to a personal injury, defamation cases can provide guidance for general damages awards in personal injury claims and vice versa.

Care of the plaintiff's wife

His Honour applied the considerations in CSR Ltd v Eddy³ in accepting that the loss of impairment in caring for his wife may be compensated as part of the general damages award.

Implications for you

Previously, the approach was taken that awards for damages in other states and territories set a standard which did not prevail in Queensland and that the role of a court was to assess the community standards in Queensland, therefore reflecting local variations within the state⁴. This decision illustrates the need to consider not only awards made in comparable claims around the rest of the country, but jury verdicts and defamation cases when assessing the quantum of common law general damages in a personal injury claim.

Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 16

Footnotes:

¹ Amaca Pty Ltd v King [2011] VSCA 447; (2011) 35 VR 280 at [175-176]
² ZAB v ZWM [2021] TASSC 64 at [122]
³ CSR Ltd v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; (2005) 226 CLR 1.
⁴ Amaca Pty Ltd v Werfel [2020] SASCFC 125; (2020) 138 SASR 295

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]