Eustace v Dubrava and Anor
[2021] QDC 104 · Dearden DCJ
Ross Eustace was injured in a motor vehicle collision on 14 August 2017 and sued the driver and the CTP insurer for damages. On the first day of trial his lawyers applied to amend his statement of claim, dramatically increasing the amounts sought, including a much larger claim for lost wages, future economic loss and past care, plus a new claim for psychiatric injury. The insurer agreed to some of these changes but opposed the rest, arguing it had lost the chance to have the plaintiff assessed by an occupational therapist and to test the new claims. The judge allowed only the amendments the insurer consented to and refused the others, finding the late changes would unfairly prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. This was a procedural ruling about pleadings, not a decision on how much the plaintiff should recover, so no damages were assessed.
Incident & injury
Motor vehicle collision
- Body regions
- Psychiatric
- Incident date
- 14 August 2017
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 31 May 2021
- Claim type
- MAIA
- Proceeding
- Interlocutory
- Plaintiff outcome
- Partial
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Not stated
Outcome
The court granted the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim only in part, allowing the amendments consented to by the defendant (psychiatric injury, general damages, Medicare, employer-funded superannuation). The balance of the amendments, including substantially increased economic loss and gratuitous care claims made on the first day of trial, were refused because of prejudice to the defendant.
Key issues
Eustace v Dubrava and Anor [2021] QDC 104
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.
Learn more about motor vehicle accident claims and psychological injury claims in Queensland.