When assessing a claim for future economic loss, at first instance, a plaintiff’s post-injury earnings may appear to provide a straightforward answer. In some cases, the plaintiff may earn more post-injury than prior to the injurious incident. It is a common misconception that a plaintiff earning more after injury will have little or no award of damages for future economic loss.
Future economic loss depends on earning capacity, not just earnings
The Court’s assessment of future economic loss is not confined to a comparison of pre- and post-injury earnings. Rather, the Court considers the plaintiff’s earning capacity and whether any diminution in that capacity is, or may be, productive of future financial loss.
A plaintiff may still be entitled to damages for economic loss as a result of their injury, regardless of whether they earn more post-injury, if the injury:
- makes them less competitive in the open labour market;
- exposes them to a risk of future loss;
- restricts the types of employment they can undertake.
The key lies in taking into account the number of years remaining in a plaintiff’s working life.
Recent Queensland authorities reinforce the principle
The 2023 Queensland Court of Appeal case of Doerr v Gardiner explained that a Court may award damages in instances where a plaintiff is not currently experiencing ongoing economic loss: “The plaintiff who is not experiencing an ongoing loss may still be ruled out of some forms of employment or at risk of a future deterioration in the compensable condition which will result in lost or reduced earnings.”
In the 2025 Queensland District Court case of Cabato v Paltridge, the plaintiff’s earnings had increased post-injury, and he had not suffered any actual economic loss prior to the trial. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the plaintiff’s increased earnings did not preclude an award for future economic loss. Judge Holliday accepted that the plaintiff continued to experience symptoms affecting his neck and back and considered that his injuries therefore had the potential to restrict his ability to undertake moderate or heavy work, reduce his capacity to work overtime and make manual employment more difficult. Judge Holliday also considered that the plaintiff may be susceptible to aggravations of his injuries, increasing in significance, with age. On that basis, it was accepted that the plaintiff’s earning capacity had been diminished and such diminution may be productive of future financial loss.
The Court recognises that an assessment of economic loss is not an exact science and relies on judicial judgment. In the 2025 Queensland Court of Appeal case of Hays Specialist Recruitment (Australia) v Carey-Schofield, it was noted that assessing future loss of earning capacity involved a “double exercise in the art of prophesising”. In particular, a Court must consider what the plaintiff’s future would have been if the injury had not occurred, and what it is now likely to be. Therefore, the Court makes allowances for contingencies and the vicissitudes of life, rather than a precise calculation.
In some instances, a Court may award a global sum for economic loss. This is codified in section 55 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), which states that where loss of earnings cannot be precisely calculated, having regard to factors such as age, work history, actual loss, impairment and other relevant matters, a Court may award damages if it is satisfied loss will be suffered.
When a claim for future economic loss may fail
A Court will not always award damages for future economic loss. In cases where the evidence does not clearly establish a real prospect that the plaintiff will earn less because of the injury, or that any diminished capacity is or may be productive of future financial loss, a Court may decline to award future economic loss. For example, in the 2017 case of Barrett v Richardson, the Queensland District Court was not persuaded that the plaintiff’s impaired capacity resulted in any real prospect of lost earnings. This was because the medical evidence did not support any ongoing impairment resulting from the injury. The Court therefore refused to award future economic loss. Additionally, in the 2010 Queensland Court of Appeal matter of Nicholas v Curtis, the plaintiff failed to establish that she would have earned more money but for the injury. Whilst she merely proved an incapacity to do certain work, the plaintiff failed to show any real chance of lost earnings.
In essence, an increase in a plaintiff’s earnings following injury, whilst a relevant consideration when assessing future economic loss, does not by itself preclude an award of damages for future economic loss. Ultimately, assessing future economic loss requires the Court to look beyond the plaintiff’s present income and consider the longer-term economic consequences of the injury upon their capacity to earn. This approach ensures plaintiffs are fairly compensated for the broader impact of their injury on their working life, including long-term vulnerabilities and risks that may not presently be reflected in their current wage.
Co-authored by Caitlin Elwood, Solicitor
