The recent judgment of the High Court of Australia in Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34 (“Stewart”) is a landmark decision which concerns the assessment of damages for catastrophic injuries suffered as a result of negligence in Australia.
Mr Stewart suffered a catastrophic brain injury as a result of negligent hospital treatment in Queensland. Before this happened, he lived in his own home with his son and dog. In assessing appropriate compensation for future care and assistance, the Courts considered three options:
- Care in a residential facility at a cost of $304,650 (“option 1”);
- Care in a residential facility with additional funding for an external care assistant at a cost of $1,081,896 (“option 2”); or
- Care in Mr Stewart’s own (rented) home, in which he would live with his son and his dog, at a cost of $4,910,343 (“option 3”).
It was not in dispute that Mr Stewart wanted to live in his own home, with his son and his dog. Further, it was accepted that there were health benefits to option 3. However, the Courts in Queensland found that the health benefits conferred by option 3 were not significantly better than option 2, and that the additional cost of nearly $3.83 million was therefore not ‘reasonable’.
The High Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Queensland Courts, reinforcing the principle that damages must put an injured person “in the same position as they would have been” had the negligence not occurred. Importantly, the High Court recognised that the mental and emotional benefits of home care, greater independence, the comfort of family and living in familiar surroundings were legitimate considerations and the choice of home care was a reasonable means of repairing the consequences of the negligence. The High Court concluded that Mr Stewart’s preference for home-based care was reasonable in the circumstances, despite the significantly increased cost.
This case emphasises that an injured person should have choice and autonomy about where they live and the care and treatment they receive, and that a determination of whether this is ‘reasonable’ is not simply about balancing the expense against the ‘health benefits’ of this choice.
At Brand Barristers and Solicitors, we specialise in catastrophic injury claims and understand how critical it is that injured people are supported to live with dignity and autonomy, whether it is through funding of home-based care, access to tailored rehabilitation or specialised equipment. The Stewart decision strengthens the rights of injured people and their families to fight for compensation that reflects their individual circumstances, not just the most economical solution.
Our team is committed to fighting for outcomes that allow our clients to rebuild their lives on their own terms.
For an obligation-free consultation, please contact us on (08) 6260 0076.
Read more about our process for Catastrophic Injury Claims
