Social Media and Queensland CTP Claim: What Clements v Margalit Means for Injury Claimants

When you bring a Queensland CTP or personal injury claim, your real life and your online life are suddenly under the same spotlight. A recent District Court decision, Clements v Margalit & Anor [2025] QDC 197, is a clear reminder that your hiking photos, travel videos and social media posts can all be used to test what you say about your injuries and your day to day limits.

This is a situation that plays out often. People are genuinely injured and struggling, but a few posts or trips taken out of context can cause real damage to a claim. This case shows how the law views that tension.

The story behind Clements v Margalit

Ms Clements was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 31 July 2019 and brought a claim in the District Court of Queensland for damages against the at fault driver and their CTP insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited.

Liability for the accident itself was admitted, so the question was not “who caused it” but “how much should be paid” by way of compensation. That question of quantum turned heavily on her ongoing symptoms and functional capacity.

In her claim, she alleged ongoing headaches, dizziness and reduced balance, pain in her head, neck, back and pelvis, reduced capacity to perform everyday tasks and chores, and restricted ability to engage in outdoor maintenance and previous recreational pursuits such as trekking and bike riding.

After the accident however, she had travelled overseas a number of times and undertaken multi day hikes and treks, including across the Arctic Circle, in Tasmania, in Uganda and on the Camino trail in Spain.

She had also stored photographs, video footage and social media content from those trips on a USB stick.

The insurer wanted to see that material.

What the insurer asked for – and why

Allianz brought an application asking the Court to order Ms Clements to provide specific information and documents under sections 45 and 50 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) and, in the alternative, under rule 223 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The insurer was not asking for her entire social media history. It sought three things:

1. A statutory declaration setting out the dates of her hikes across the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda and Tanzania, together with details of transport, accommodation and a detailed itinerary of the hiking routes and checkpoints.
2. Copies of photographs and video footage documenting her hiking adventures in the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda and Spain, as stored on the USB she had referred to in her evidence.
3. Copies of the social media posts on that USB in which she shared those adventures more widely.

The reason was straightforward. The insurer wanted to test whether the physical demands of those trips were consistent with her claimed injuries, symptoms and restrictions. In simple terms, if someone says they are badly limited by pain, vertigo and fatigue, but they are also walking long distances over challenging terrain with a backpack, that is highly relevant to the value of the claim.

How the Court approached the duty to disclose

The Judge started with section 45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act, which imposes a duty on claimants to cooperate with the insurer. This includes providing documents in their possession about the accident, their medical condition, consequent disabilities and medical history, and giving information reasonably requested about those matters.

The Court confirmed that this is a broad duty. It is designed to give the insurer enough information, at an early stage, to properly assess liability and quantum. It also sits alongside the general duty in the Rules to disclose documents that are directly relevant to issues in the case.

Critically, the Court held that photos, videos and social media content from the hiking trips fell within that duty. They were not “extra” or “nice to have” material. They went to the heart of how the plaintiff functioned in the real world, after the accident, and were therefore necessary for a fair assessment of her claim.

What “directly relevant” really means

A key question was whether this hiking content was “directly relevant” to the issues in dispute.

The Court said yes, and took a common sense approach. The plaintiff had alleged significant ongoing pain, headaches, dizziness, reduced balance and restricted recreational capacity, including difficulty with trekking. She had, however, undertaken multi day treks and challenging hikes overseas after the accident.

Information about those trips could show:

• the difficulty of the terrain
• the length and nature of the walks
• whether she was carrying packs
• the camping or accommodation conditions
• her level of activity and participation

All of that bears directly on her functional capacity for work, daily activities, recreation and any need for care and assistance or ongoing treatment. The judge emphasised that “directly relevant” does not mean the document must be direct proof by itself. Circumstantial material can still be directly relevant if, when combined with other evidence, it tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue.

In other words, a photo of you smiling on a mountain top might not tell the whole story, but it is still part of the picture the Court is entitled to see.

Was the request too onerous?

The plaintiff argued that complying with the request would be overly burdensome. She said she had thousands of photos and hours of video footage and that finding everything would be difficult and expensive. She also pointed out that some material was stored on a hard drive packed away in boxes, and that her social media use was not extensive.

The evidence, however, showed that the content relating to the relevant hikes was available on a USB stick and that her social media activity was limited. The insurer’s request was also tightly focused on four particular trips, within defined timeframes.

The Judge accepted that broad fishing expeditions into social media may, in some cases, be oppressive. That was not the situation here. Given the material was readily available electronically and could be filtered or sorted by date, the Court held that compliance would not be unreasonably onerous.

Privacy versus a claim for damages

Perhaps the most striking part of the reasoning is the treatment of privacy. The plaintiff submitted that being required to hand over this material would be a gross invasion of her privacy.

The Court rejected this, relying on earlier authority that makes the position plain. When a person comes to the Court seeking a substantial sum of money for personal injuries, the “price” of doing so is the disclosure of a great deal of material that would, in normal circumstances, be considered confidential or private. Personal injuries litigation is, by its nature, intrusive. That is not a reason to refuse disclosure where the material is otherwise relevant.

The judge also noted that, according to the plaintiff’s own evidence, many of the photos were of scenery and animals, which made it even harder to justify a strong privacy objection.

The final outcome in Clements v Margalit

In the end, the Court ordered the plaintiff to provide:

• A statutory declaration confirming the dates of her hikes across the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda and Tanzania, together with details of transport, accommodation and detailed itineraries, including hiking routes and checkpoints.
• Copies of photographs and videos documenting her hiking adventures across the Arctic Circle, Tasmania, Uganda and Spain, as held on the USB.
• Copies of social media posts about those adventures stored on the USB.

The Court also ordered her to pay the insurer’s costs of the application on the standard basis.

It is a clear signal that Queensland courts will expect claimants to comply with properly framed requests for social media and travel content where it is genuinely relevant to their injuries and capacity.

What this means for Queensland injury claimants

For injured people in Queensland, this decision is a real world reminder, not a scare story. If you are bringing a WorkCover’s Compensation Claim, CTP or other personal injury claim in Queensland, your case is not just about what is written in medical reports or what you say in statements. It is also about what you do day to day, and the digital footprint of your life.

That does not mean you need to stop living, refuse all travel or never post again. It does mean that what you tell your doctors, your insurer, your lawyer and, ultimately, the Court must line up with how you are actually functioning.

If you go on a trek and push yourself, your lawyer needs to know. If you tried a big walk and then spent three days in bed afterwards, that context matters. If your social media shows you doing things you say you cannot do, that inconsistency will almost certainly be used against you.

Honesty, accuracy and context protect you far more than trying to hide things. The law already assumes that relevant evidence will be disclosed. The question is whether that happens in a managed, strategic way through your legal team, or in a damaging way through an insurer-led application and adverse findings.

Common questions we hear about social media and claims

Can insurers really look at my social media and travel photos?
Yes. If you are bringing a WorkCover, personal injury or CTP claim in Brisbane or Queensland and your functional capacity and lifestyle are in issue, insurers can seek orders for you to disclose posts, photos and videos that relate to those issues. That can include content saved on devices and USBs, not just what is publicly visible.

Does it matter if my accounts are “private”?
Private settings are helpful for day to day life, but they do not create a shield in litigation. If the content is relevant and can be identified, a court can order you to provide it, even if it is not publicly visible.

What exactly is “directly relevant”?
Direct relevance means that the material tends to support or undermine a fact that is in dispute in your case, such as the severity of your injuries, the extent of your limitations or your ability to work and care for yourself. It includes circumstantial material that forms part of the overall evidentiary picture.

What happens if I do not disclose something?
Failing to disclose relevant material can seriously harm your case. Courts can make adverse findings about your credibility, reduce the weight given to your evidence and, in some circumstances, order you to pay the other side’s legal costs of any application to force disclosure, as happened in Clements v Margalit.

How can I protect my claim without putting my life on hold?
The most important thing is to be upfront with your lawyer. Tell them about your activities, your good days and bad days, your travel, your attempts to stay active and any photos or posts that might be relevant. We can then give you clear advice about how that material fits into your claim, and how to present it honestly while still pressing for fair compensation.

How a personal injury lawyer can help

An experienced personal injury lawyer understands that you are not a legal problem, you are a person whose life has been disrupted by injury. They will also know how confronting it can feel when insurers want access to what you see as private memories and experiences.

The role of a personal injury lawyer is to:

• Explain your disclosure obligations in plain English.
• Help you navigate requests for photos, videos and social media content without panic.
• Make sure your story is told in context, not through a few cherry picked posts.
• Fight for fair compensation that reflects your real injuries and the impact on your life.

If you have a CTP or personal injury claim in Brisbane or Queensland and you are worried about what this decision means for you, you should consider engaging a personal injury lawyer to protect your rights.