DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Cabato v Paltridge and Another [2025] QDC 59
PARTIES:
DARWIN CABATO
(Plaintiff)v
GREGORY STUART PALTRIDGE(First Defendant)
And
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(Second Defendant)FILE NO:
DC 83 of 2021
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
21 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:
HEARING DATES:
Southport
31 March – 4 April; 28 April 2025 (written submissions dated 17 and 22 April 2025)
JUDGE:
Holliday KC DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $73,663.91
2. Unless the parties can agree on costs, submissions on costs from both parties, limited to no more than five pages must be exchanged and filed no later than 4.00pm on 28 May 2025.
3. Any reply to those submissions, limited to no more than three pages, must be exchanged and filed no later than 4.00pm on 30 May 2025.
4. Liberty to apply.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where the plaintiff suffered injuries in an accident where he was riding a bicycle and was struck by the first defendant’s vehicle – where liability is agreed with the plaintiff being 25 percent contributory negligent – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where there is a dispute as to the injuries caused by the accident – where there is a dispute as to the consequences of the injuries caused by the accident
DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – PAST AND FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS – where the effect on employment is in issue
LEGISLATION:
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ss 55, 61, 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 9, schedule 4
CASES:
Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331
Baldock-Davis v Popham & Anor [2023] QSC 24
Allwood v Wilson and Anor [2011] QSC 180
Foster v Carter and Anor [2017] QSC 135
Goodfellow v Clarke [2015] QDC 193
Cook v Bowen and Anor [2007] QDC 108
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Norman v Hird and Anor [2025] QDC 44
Nichols v Curtis & Anor [2010] QCA 303
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Evans v Williams & Anor [2018] QDC 210
O’Connor v Wright [2021] QDC 173
Hoveydai v Mak & Anor [2021] QSC 16COUNSEL:
M Lazinski for the plaintiff
R Morton for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Southern Gold Coast Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendants
Introduction
The accident
Plaintiff’s credibility
Issues
Whether the plaintiff suffered injury to the neck and if so, what is the nature and extent of any such injury.
Whether the plaintiff suffered an injury to his lumbar spine and if so, what is the nature and extent of any such injury.
Whether the plaintiff suffered an injury of a psychiatric nature
The nature and extent of the injuries to the left and right knees
The nature and extent of the injuries to the head
General damages
Economic loss
Continue reading Cabato v Paltridge
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cabato v Paltridge [2025] QDC 59
- Case
- [2025] QDC 59
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were the extent and permanence of the plaintiff's injuries and the appropriate amount of damages for both general damages and economic loss. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence regarding the injuries, their impact on the plaintiff's life, and the extent to which these injuries were attributable to the accident. The court also needed to consider the impact on the plaintiff’s employment and earning capacity, as well as any other consequential losses. The court applied the statutory framework provided by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) to assess and quantify the damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were significant but not as severe as he claimed. It accepted that the injuries had a material impact on his life, particularly in terms of ongoing pain and reduced capacity for work. The court awarded the plaintiff $73,663.91 in total damages, taking into account his contributory negligence. This sum reflected the court’s assessment of the general damages for pain and suffering and the economic loss, both past and future. The court’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the medical evidence, the plaintiff’s testimony, and the impact of the injuries on his ability to work and enjoy life.
The orders of the court included judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $73,663.91. The court mandated that unless the parties could agree on costs, they must exchange and file submissions on costs by specified deadlines, with any replies to be filed within a further limited timeframe. The court also reserved the right to grant further orders if necessary.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $73,663.91
2. Unless the parties can agree on costs, submissions on costs from both parties, limited to no more than five pages must be exchanged and filed no later than 4.00pm on 28 May 2025.
3. Any reply to those submissions, limited to no more than three pages, must be exchanged and filed no later than 4.00pm on 30 May 2025.
4. Liberty to apply.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.