Future Loss of Earning Capacity for Young People: What a Recent Queensland Case Means 

A recent Queensland District Court decision is a useful reminder that an injury claim is not just about what someone earns today. For a young person, the harder question is often what they could have gone on to earn if the injury had not happened. In Ardis-Phasey v Neal & Anor [2026] QDC 25, the court looked closely at that issue and also made pointed comments about insurer surveillance filmed inside Costco.

For people dealing with a motor vehicle accident claim or another personal injury matter in Queensland, this case shows two things. First, future loss of earning capacity is not limited to a simple wage comparison. Second, surveillance does not automatically weaken a claim, especially where it actually supports the injured person’s account.

Why this case matters

The plaintiff was injured in a car accident at age 14. By the time of trial, he was 20. Liability had been admitted, but there was a real dispute about the effect of his lower back injury and what it meant for his future working life. The court ultimately awarded total damages of $182,800, including $160,000 for future economic loss.

That matters because younger claimants often do not have a long work history, a settled career path, or a clean before-and-after income pattern. Courts still have to assess future loss of earning capacity, but they do it by looking at the evidence in a broader and more realistic way.

The court accepted ongoing back pain despite insurer challenges

One of the key features of the case was credibility. The plaintiff’s back pain was largely established through his own reporting, which insurers often test hard. The judge acknowledged that lower back pain can be difficult to prove through obvious clinical findings alone and said these cases often turn on whether the plaintiff is accepted as a credible and reliable witness.

Here, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence after lengthy cross-examination about sport, gym activity, work history and surveillance footage. The judge described him as disciplined, truthful and careful. The court also accepted that young people sometimes push through pain, overdo things, or make poor decisions out of bravado. That did not mean he was not injured.

That point is important in Queensland personal injury law. A claimant does not become unbelievable just because they have tried to keep working, playing sport, or getting on with life.

How courts assess future loss of earning capacity for a young person

The legal framework comes from section 55 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). It applies where loss of earnings cannot be precisely calculated by reference to a defined weekly loss, and it requires the court to state the assumptions and methodology used to reach an award.

It is about capacity, not just current wages

A central point in the judgment was that the court was not simply comparing present wages with some alternative number. The judge said the task was to identify the effect of the injury on the plaintiff’s capacity to earn income in the future, then work out fair compensation for that lost capacity.

That is why future loss of earning capacity can exist even if a young person is still working. In this case, the plaintiff was working at Costco and managing full shifts, but the court accepted that his injury could still limit the sort of higher-output, physically demanding work he was otherwise well suited to do.

A 20-year-old’s current job is not the whole story

The judge made another practical point: it can be artificial to assume that what a person is doing at 20 is what they would have done until retirement. Young adults change. They mature, they pick up skills, they meet people, they move into different industries, and sometimes they outperform what their early work record might suggest.

That part of the reasoning is especially useful for any young plaintiff whose current job does not fully reflect their likely future. The court found this plaintiff was hardworking, disciplined, physically capable and likely suited to skilled or semi-skilled manual work. The injury mattered because it may have restricted or slowed that path, even if it did not stop him from turning up and doing lighter duties in the present.

The award was not based on guesswork. It was based on findings about his work ethic, likely career direction, the reality of his symptoms, the possibility he would eventually have to disclose his back problems to employers, and the court’s view that proper treatment might reduce the long-term impact.

What the court said about surveillance footage filmed at Costco

The surveillance issue is the other reason this case stands out.

Why the footage did not damage the plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff was filmed while working inside Costco. Rather than undermining his claim, the judge said the footage was ironically helpful because it showed him doing minor back stretches throughout his shift and tended to confirm that the back injury was persistent and ever-present.

That is a useful lesson for injured people worried about insurer surveillance. Being seen at work, in public, or completing ordinary tasks does not automatically destroy a claim. Context matters. Courts will look at what the footage really shows, not just the fact that footage exists.

Why the court criticised the filming

The judge then went further. He said the surveillance footage was taken inside the plaintiff’s workplace and another shop without any suggestion of consent from the occupiers, and that this likely involved unlawful trespass. He also criticised the filming of a young woman who had nothing to do with the case.

The court accepted that insurers are entitled to investigate claims, but made clear that surveillance still needs to remain within the law. That is a significant point for any case involving insurer surveillance in retail or workplace settings.

What injured people in Queensland can take from this decision

This judgment does not mean every young claimant will recover a large sum for future loss of earning capacity. What it does mean is that courts can take a broad and realistic view where the evidence supports it.

A few practical points stand out:

• a claimant can still be believed even if they have tried to keep working or stay active
• a short work history does not prevent a real finding of future economic loss
• the court may look at likely career direction, work ethic and aptitude, not just current pay slips
• surveillance footage must be tested carefully for what it actually proves
• where a weekly loss cannot be pinned down neatly, section 55 still allows a court to make a reasoned global assessment

When to seek legal advice about future economic loss

If you are under 30, still building your work life, and dealing with a lasting injury after a crash or another accident, it is worth getting advice early. Cases involving future loss of earning capacity often turn on the full picture: your medical evidence, your work pattern, your likely future path, and how the injury affects your ability to sustain heavier work, overtime, promotion or training opportunities.

Best Injury Lawyers’ act for people in Queensland who want straightforward guidance through a stressful process.  We operate on a no win no fee basis, apply an industry leading 30% + GST cap to our fees, and use our expertise to explore every avenue of compensation for our clients.