General Damages in QLD Compensation Law: Understanding “pain and suffering”

“General damages”, “non-economic loss” and “pain and suffering” – if you’ve suffered a personal injury in Queensland you’ve likely heard all of these phrases.   They’re all ways of describing compensation for the human impact of an injury: the pain, the distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life that comes with it.

A recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision, Greenall v Amaca Pty Ltd [2026] QSC 16, has reinforced that these awards are assessed at common law (meaning the same way around Australia) and may herald a change for general damages in Queensland claims towards awards that are more comparable to New South Wales and Victoria.

What are “general damages” and “non-economic loss”?

When we’re talking damages for your pain and suffering in plain English, we’re talking about general damages. General damages are awarded to compensate you for losses that aren’t financial and typically don’t come with an invoice or receipt. They can include:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress, anxiety, and loss of dignity
• Loss of enjoyment of life and hobbies
• The loss of independence that follows a serious injury or illness
• The effect the injuries have on day-to-day life and interpersonal relationships

People often call this “pain and suffering”, but it’s broader than pain alone. It’s about what the injury has taken from your life.

Queensland’s general damages awards sometimes seem low. Why?

The general sense from case law over the years has been that general damages awards in Queensland, especially in serious injury claims they tend to fall towards the lower end of comparable jurisdictions in Australia. New South Wales and Victoria, in particular, have often seen higher general damages awards than Queensland.

There are different reasons suggested for that trend, including the types of cases that reach judgment, different statutory settings in different jurisdictions (particularly in Queensland where many “pain and suffering” awards are limited by statute), and the way comparators are used. But at common law, the underlying principle matters: Australia has one common law, not separate common laws for each State.

That is where Greenall becomes important. Greenall was a mesothelioma case, but the point is broader than dust diseases.

The Supreme Court made it clear that where general damages are being assessed at common law, it is not a “Queensland-only” exercise. Courts can properly look to interstate decisions, including decisions from specialist courts and tribunals in other States, to make sure outcomes are consistent nationally.

In other words, pain and suffering has the same human impact whether it is suffered in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or anywhere else. A person’s suffering doesn’t become less valuable because their case is in Queensland.

That is a simple idea, but it has real consequences for how general damages should be argued and assessed in the future.

Why this could be a turning point for Queensland general damages

For a long time, it has been easier for defendants to argue that interstate awards are “not relevant here” or that Queensland should remain in its own lane. Greenall pushes back against that approach.

The decision supports the idea that, in appropriate cases, Queensland courts should be willing to assess non-economic loss at levels that match the national range for comparable injuries, rather than holding to lower historical Queensland figures.

That doesn’t mean every case will attract higher general damages. The amount still depends on evidence: the severity of symptoms, the length of suffering, the impact on independence, and how the injury affects daily life. But it does mean that in serious matters, the right comparators should be on the table, and they won’t be limited to older Queensland cases.

Why this matters in real life: serious injuries and the “human loss” component

General damages can be a major part of the overall value of a claim, particularly where the injury causes:

• long-term pain or disability
• loss of mobility or independence
• ongoing mental distress
• loss of ability to care for others or take part in family life
• reduced enjoyment of life for the remainder of the person’s life

In Greenall, the Court also accepted that the loss of capacity to care for a loved one can form part of the assessment of loss of enjoyment of life. That matters because many injured people don’t just lose work capacity. They lose the ability to do what gave their life meaning: caring for a partner, helping family, running a household, and staying active.

What types of claims could be affected?

Although the decision arose in a dust disease claim, the reasoning about common law general damages can apply more broadly, including:

• Mixed WorkCover and PIPA claims (where a PIPA defendant can still be exposed to common law damages)
• dust disease and other catastrophic illness claims
• some historical abuse claims where general damages are assessed at common law
• serious injury matters more generally where courts are asked to value non-economic loss

The common thread is this: if a court is assessing “pain and suffering” and non-economic loss at common law, the assessment should be coherent nationally.

Understanding how general damages are assessed in Qld

For people seeking to understand how general damages are assessed in QLD, it’s important to know that there is no single set amount and no reliable “calculator” that applies across all cases.

But there are still practical takeaways:

• The type of case you have is important. This decision applies to common law assessments and does not override the statutory limits that apply to some Gypes of claims
• general damages are about your lived experience, not just a diagnosis
• Evidence matters: what you can no longer do, how your daily life has changed, and how long the suffering has lasted
• For serious injuries, interstate decisions may become harder to dismiss
• Greenall supports the view that Queensland awards should not sit artificially below the national range in comparable cases

For people with significant injuries, that may be an encouraging development. It suggests Queensland courts are prepared to look more openly at how non-economic loss is valued across Australia, which may support larger awards in appropriate cases going forward.

Important disclaimer

This article provides general information about legal principles relating to general damages and non-economic loss in Queensland. It does not provide legal advice and should not be relied upon as advice for any specific situation.