Murphy v Madill

Case [2025] QSC 103

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103
PARTIES:

DANIEL JOSEPH MURPHY

(plaintiff)

v
SCOTT DAVID MADILL

(first defendant)

JAMES RUDDELL

(second defendant)

AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE

(third defendant)

FILE NO:

10749 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2023, 30 May 2023, 31 May 2023, 1 June 2023,
2 June 2023 and 7 August 2023

JUDGE:

Sullivan J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $635,146.81 for damages.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries arising out of two motor vehicle accidents – where liability is admitted by the defendants – where the plaintiff has pre-existing psychiatric conditions – where the plaintiff has degenerative and inflammatory physical injuries – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – whether the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were caused by the accidents and what damages follow from each injury

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – INCOME LOSS AND LOSS OF EARING CAPACITY– GENERALLY – where the plaintiff was admitted as a solicitor in the Supreme Court between the first and second accidents – where the plaintiff seeks damages for past and future economic loss based on the income of a lawyer in a mid-tier firm earning in the high range – where the plaintiff was working as a sole practitioner under supervision – whether the award for damages for past and future economic loss should be made on that basis

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 54(2), s 55, s 59, s 60
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)

Bezant v Davis & Anor [2010] QSC 229
Brown v Daniels [2018] QSC 209
Caffrey v AAI Limited [2019] QSC 7
Kemp v Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service [2024] QSC 259
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
R v Daniel [1998] 1 Qd R 499
Stevens v DP World Melbourne Limited [2022] VSCA 285
Sutton v Hunter & Anor [2021] QSC 249

COUNSEL:

S D Anderson for the plaintiff
R C Morton with E J Williams for the defendants
S J Tan appearing on behalf of the Legal Services Commissioner

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet Solicitors for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the defendants

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background facts prior to the two motor vehicle accidents

Education and employment history of the plaintiff prior to the two motor vehicle accidents

(a) Granite Traders

(b) Alert Coffee

(c) Caravan rental business and caravan buy and sell business

(d) Safe and Sound Building Society

Further academic and vocational activities up to the first motor vehicle accident - 10 January 2017

The first motor vehicle accident - 10 January 2017

Employment and academic pursuits of the plaintiff after the first…

Continue reading Murphy v Madill

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103
Case
[2025] QSC 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murphy v Madill involves the plaintiff, Mr. Murphy, who sought damages for personal injuries arising from two separate motor vehicle accidents. The defendants, who admitted liability, were sued for damages. The court was tasked with determining the extent of the injuries caused by the accidents and the appropriate compensation under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The plaintiff had pre-existing psychiatric conditions and degenerative and inflammatory physical injuries, complicating the assessment of damages. The court had to decide whether the injuries suffered were caused by the accidents and what damages should be awarded for each injury.

The primary legal issues included the assessment of damages for past and future economic loss, considering the plaintiff's career as a sole practitioner under supervision rather than a mid-tier firm lawyer as he had initially claimed. Another issue was the quantification of damages for income loss and loss of earning capacity. The court also had to consider the impact of the plaintiff's pre-existing psychiatric conditions on the damages awarded. The court needed to weigh the evidence from various medical experts and determine the extent to which the accidents exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions.

The court found that the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions did not preclude him from recovering damages for injuries sustained in the accidents. It was determined that the second accident caused a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine, contributing to the plaintiff's overall impairment. The court assessed the damages for past and future economic loss based on the plaintiff's career as a sole practitioner, considering the realistic earning capacity rather than the higher income of a mid-tier firm lawyer. The court awarded damages of $635,146.81 to the plaintiff against the third defendant.

The court's decision took into account the medical evidence provided by both parties, the plaintiff's history of injuries, and the impact of the accidents on his current condition. The court's judgment provided a comprehensive assessment of the damages, ensuring that the plaintiff received appropriate compensation for the injuries caused by the accidents.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant for $635,146.81 for damages.

Background

Background to the litigation

I will bear in mind these observations when considering issues of the credit in respect of the plaintiff.Background facts prior to the two motor vehicle accidents The plaintiff was born on 24 April 1974 and, accordingly, is 51 years of age. It is uncontroversial that during the plaintiff’s childhood he had a number of traumatic experiences which I will refer to as his “Childhood Trauma”. It is unnecessary to go further in describing the Childhood Trauma as the circumstances are adequately identified in the relevant psychiatric reports of Dr Lockwood and Dr Duke (being the psychiatric experts who were called in this case), and the notes of Dr Kerr, who has been the plaintiff’s treating psychologist for some time.[3][3]Examples of the descriptions of the plaintiff’s Childhood Trauma can be seen at Dr Lockwood’s report of 28 August 2020 at p. 25 of the trial bundle para [1], and p. 57 of the trial bundle, at Dr Duke’s report of 17 November 2020 at p. 98 of the trial bundle at para [4] and Dr Kerr’s report of 7 August 2020 at p. 1 of the trial bundle at para [3], items numbered 1 - 2. Dr Lockwood was a psychiatrist called by the plaintiff. She proffered the opinion that since early in the plaintiff’s life, he has experienced chronic symptoms of mood problems, hyper-vigilance, avoidance, relationship difficulties and detachment, loss of trust, some intrusive re-experiencing symptoms, and a compensatory focus on achievement, independence and safety. Dr Lockwood noted that the plaintiff’s medical records identified that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with a pre-existing chronic ICD-11[4] diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, a diagnosis which incorporated, in her view, many developmental effects consequent on the plaintiff’s Childhood Trauma. Dr Lockwood identified that this diagnosis was consistent with a DSM-V[5] diagnosis of Chronic Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and throughout the plaintiff’s life, he had a number of chronic symptoms of this disorder, with variations in symptom severity and impact over time. Dr Lockwood recorded that the plaintiff had previously been diagnosed as having a Major Depressive Disorder by Dr Adem Can, a consultant psychiatrist who he started seeing in June 2015, and was then additionally diagnosed by Dr Can as having a General Anxiety Disorder in August 2016.[4]International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision – World Health Organisation.[5]Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (OSM-5-TR), American Psychiatric Association. I accept the opinion of Dr Lockwood in respect of the plaintiff’s pre-existing symptoms and the evidence that he had historically suffered from the other identified disorders. At one time, the plaintiff had been mentored and counselled by a Mr John Guy. It is evident on the material that this had been beneficial to the plaintiff. In 2012, Mr Guy had referred the plaintiff to Dr Katelyn Kerr. Dr Kerr has been treating the plaintiff since 2012. Again, on the material it is evident that this has been beneficial to the plaintiff. A large portion of Dr Kerr’s notes were tendered in the proceeding.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The principal witnesses in this area were Dr Shaw, an orthopaedic surgeon called by the plaintiff, and Dr Johnstone, an orthopaedic surgeon called by the defendants.(b) The orthopaedic evidence Dr Shaw, in his 14 March 2021 report, recorded that in relation to the cervical spine there was a musculoligamentous cervical spine injury with asymmetrical restriction of movement and muscle guarding on lateral flexion, which was consistent with DRE Cervical Category II, providing for five per cent whole person impairment. Dr Shaw had earlier noted in his report that the plaintiff had a prior injury in the form of intermittent recurrent neck pain as a result of a motor vehicle accident in 2013. Dr Shaw recommended allocating one per cent whole person impairment due to the pre-existing neck pain caused by the accident in 2013, thereby leaving a four per cent whole person impairment causally attributed to the second motor vehicle accident on 28 August 2019. Dr Johnstone, in his report of 11 March 2021, observed, in part, that the plaintiff had walked with a normal gait at his examination and stood with an upright posture. He observed there was no obvious muscle wasting or spasm or malalignment to the cervical spine. In relation to cervical spine motion, he observed it appeared to be slightly asymmetric with pain. He noted there was 40 degrees of flexion and extension, 30 degrees of right lateral flexion and 25 degrees of left lateral flexion and 60 degrees of left and right cervical rotation. The plaintiff complained of tenderness all over his left paraspinal muscles and a gentle palpation causing a tingling sensation to the fingers on his left hand. Dr Johnstone made comments on a 30 August 2019 X-ray of the cervical spine, noting:(a)no fractures being evident; (b)the vertebral body alignment being normal; and (c)no spondylolisthesis. Dr Johnstone noted that there were endplate osteophyte formations at the anterior aspect of C5/6, otherwise the disc spaces, facet joints and neural foramina were unremarkable and within normal limits. Dr Johnstone concluded that as a result of the second accident, the plaintiff appeared to have suffered, amongst other things, a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine. Dr Johnstone’s assessment was that the plaintiff was suffering from a partial impairment to the spine and, currently based on his asymmetrical cervical spine motion, this would place him in Cervical Spine DRE Category II with a five per cent impairment. He said there was no additional percentage impairment for the effect on daily living activities, as he deemed that to be mainly psychological. There was much cross-examination of Dr Shaw in relation to medical records which had periodically, over the years preceding the second motor vehicle accident, referred to the plaintiff suffering from neck pain and left shoulder pain, with one physiotherapist entry referring to there being chronic neck pain. Whilst Dr Shaw was initially taken aback when taken to the number of entries recording these events, they ultimately did not alter his opinion. He maintained his view that the five per cent assessment was appropriate, with one per cent of that assessment representing the past cervical spine impairment.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.