Youssef v Eckersley & Anor [2024] QSC 35

The legal action before the court arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22 December 2016, involving the plaintiff, Dr. Chadi Youssef, and the first defendant, Graham Raymond Eckersley. The nature of the action is a civil claim for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the accident. The plaintiff alleges that he suffered various injuries, including cervical spine and facial injuries, as well as psychological injuries, which he claims have significantly impacted his ability to work and his overall quality of life.

The court noted that the plaintiff had prepared submissions with the assistance of the artificial intelligence platform Chat GPT. The plaintiff vouched for the accuracy of his submissions but indicated that the platform helped with their organisational structure and added a flourish to the submissions. The court accepted the submissions.

The remedy being sought by the plaintiff is monetary compensation for the damages incurred as a result of the accident. Specifically, the plaintiff is claiming a total of $1,056,459.55 in damages against both the first defendant and his insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $85,466.56, which includes general damages, past economic loss, interest on past economic loss, past loss of superannuation, and past special damages. The question of future economic loss and future special damages was not awarded, as the court found insufficient evidence to support those claims.

The relevant facts to the legal issues include that the plaintiff, Dr. Chadi Youssef, was riding his motorcycle when the first defendant, Graham Raymond Eckersley, pulled out of a shopping center car park and collided with him, resulting in significant injuries. The plaintiff was diagnosed with cervical spine injuries, facial injuries, and psychological conditions, including a depressive disorder, which he claims were exacerbated by the accident. The second defendant, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, accepted liability for the accident, but the dispute centered on the quantum of damages, particularly regarding the causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's psychiatric sequelae. The court found that while the accident had a temporary impact on the plaintiff's mental health, subsequent stressors played a more significant role in his ongoing psychological issues. Ultimately, the court awarded damages based on the injuries sustained and their impact on the plaintiff's life and earning capacity.

Did the motor vehicle accident caused by the first defendant result in compensable damages for the plaintiff, including the assessment of the plaintiff's physical and psychological injuries, and the extent to which those injuries impacted his earning capacity?

The case illustrates the general principle of law that a plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries must establish a causal link between the defendant's negligent conduct and the injuries sustained, as well as demonstrate the extent of the damages incurred. This includes proving both factual causation, which requires showing that the injuries would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions, and legal causation, which involves determining whether the scope of the defendant's liability extends to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of considering pre-existing conditions and subsequent stressors when assessing the impact of the accident on the plaintiff's overall health and earning capacity.

The court applied the general principle of law regarding causation by examining the evidence presented to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries were directly linked to the motor vehicle accident caused by the first defendant. The court considered the plaintiff's claims of physical injuries, including cervical spine and facial injuries, alongside his psychological conditions, particularly the depressive disorder. While the second defendant accepted liability for the accident, the court scrutinized the evidence to assess the extent to which the accident contributed to the plaintiff's ongoing mental health issues, especially in light of the plaintiff's pre-existing psychological conditions and subsequent stressors that arose after the accident.

The court ultimately concluded that the accident had a temporary impact on the plaintiff's mental health, but that subsequent stressors, such as personal and legal challenges, played a more significant role in his current condition. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff damages totaling $85,466.56, which included general damages, past economic loss, interest on past economic loss, past loss of superannuation, and past special damages, while denying claims for future economic loss and future special damages due to insufficient evidence linking those claims to the accident.

In its reasoning process, the court relied on several key cases to support its conclusions regarding causation and the assessment of damages. Notably, the court referenced the case of Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537, which discusses the necessity of establishing a causal link between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court considered the principles outlined in Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, which emphasizes the need for a plaintiff to demonstrate that their earning capacity has been diminished due to the injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's actions. These cases provided a framework for evaluating the evidence and determining the appropriate damages in the context of the plaintiff's claims.


"While the accident was one stressor amongst many, its contribution at the time was significant. However, that contribution lessened over time and was replaced by multiple other stressors which, in aggregate, have been much more significant and caused a severe deterioration in the plaintiff’s condition."