Date: 30 December 2025

2025 marked a transformative year for personal injury law in Queensland. Several landmark decisions clarified important principles across future-care damages, employer liability for psychiatric injury, foreseeability for secondary victims, and the definition of a “worker” under compensation legislation.

The most influential judgments were Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service (HCA) and Habermann v Cook Shire Council (QSC) — each reshaping the legal landscape in distinct ways. Additional guidance emerged from Lundburgs v Fu and Foord v Workers’ Compensation Regulator, addressing psychiatric foreseeability and worker classification in informal work arrangements.

Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34

The High Court delivered a significant clarification on how courts should assess the reasonableness of future care expenses.

Rather than adopting a simplistic cost-benefit approach, the Court reaffirmed the compensatory purpose of damages: to restore the injured person, as far as reasonably possible, to their pre-injury position. The central question is whether the plaintiff’s proposed care model is a reasonable and proportionate way to address the consequences of the tort.

Importantly, the Court held:

• Cost considerations remain relevant but cannot dominate the analysis.
• A defendant must prove that a plaintiff unreasonably rejected a reasonable alternative.
• Courts should recognise when the plaintiff’s preferred care model leads to materially better functional or psychosocial outcomes.

Stewart signals a shift toward a more holistic and claimant-centred assessment of future care.

Habermann v Cook Shire Council [2025] QSC 214

Described as the year’s most significant Queensland decision on psychiatric injury, Habermann examined an employer’s obligations when reputational harm causes psychological damage.

The plaintiff suffered a severe psychiatric injury after a fabricated defamatory email—purporting to be written by her—circulated among key stakeholders and was later tabled in Parliament. Although the email was created by an unknown third party, the Council had assumed responsibility for investigating its authenticity and communicating with affected parties.

The Court held:

• The employer–employee relationship is a recognised exception to the rule in Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil.
• Because the employee was vulnerable to reputational damage, and the Council had assumed control of the process, it owed a duty to act promptly and reasonably.
• The Council breached its duty by failing to communicate the investigation findings in a timely manner.

This case underscores employers’ proactive responsibilities when they have assumed control over matters impacting an employee’s reputation.
The decision is currently under appeal.

Lundburgs v Fu [2025] QSC 135

This decision refined the boundaries of foreseeability in psychiatric injury claims by secondary victims.

The plaintiff developed psychiatric symptoms after learning—indirectly—that family members had been involved in a minor motor vehicle accident and were physically uninjured. The Court found it was not reasonably foreseeable that such a low-impact incident, communicated second-hand, would cause the severe psychiatric condition alleged.

This ruling highlights:

• Foreseeability of psychiatric harm remains tightly factual.
• Emotional upset or shock is not enough; there must be an objectively plausible and predictable causal chain.
• The nature of the incident and the mode of communication play a critical role in determining foreseeability.

Foord v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 27

Foord addressed whether a person who performed yard and property maintenance in exchange for being allowed to park a campervan and use facilities on a rural property constituted a “worker.”

The arrangement had been made informally via Facebook. The injured person was fatally electrocuted while repairing a leaking pipe. The applicant (on behalf of the deceased) argued that the arrangement met the legal criteria of employment.

The QIRC agreed, finding:

• The agreement was not merely a social or informal exchange.
• The essential elements of a contract—offer, acceptance, and consideration—were satisfied.
• The injured person therefore qualified as a “worker” under Queensland’s workers’ compensation scheme.

This decision reinforces that substance prevails over form when determining worker status, especially in non-traditional or informal working arrangements.

Conclusion

The 2025 jurisprudence reflects a broader judicial movement toward acknowledging the real-world experiences of injured claimants, especially concerning future care and psychiatric harm.

Key themes include:

• Stewart encourages courts to assess care models through a lens of dignity, functionality, and holistic recovery—not just cost.
• Habermann emphasises that employers who assume responsibility for investigations cannot adopt a passive approach when an employee’s reputation and mental health are at stake.
• Lundburgs and Foord demonstrate continued refinement in the areas of psychiatric foreseeability and worker classification, both of which remain active areas of litigation.

As we move into 2026, practitioners should anticipate:

• Closer scrutiny of employer investigatory processes,
• More nuanced and evidence-driven future-care claims, and

• Increased attention to the factual underpinnings of psychiatric injury and worker-status disputes.