Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34
This follows our previous post on Mr Stewart’s claim against Metro North Hospital and Health Service (“MNHHS”) for the Redcliffe Hospital. MNHSS admitted that its care was below a reasonable standard and that as a result Mr Stewart suffered injuries including a cardiac arrest and widespread damage to his brain because of a stroke. However, the first instance and the Court of Appeal judgments meant that although he was awarded $2.2m in damages, those damages did not provide for him to leave the residential facility he was living in, so that he could live in his own home and receive his required therapy there. The Courts found that, whilst Mr Stewart would gain physical health benefits from additional therapy, it could be just as easily (and more cost effectively) provided in the residential facility and that the additional expense of Mr Stewart returning to his home was not a reasonable cost for MNHSS to have to incur.
Mr Stewart appealed to the High Court of Australia. The High Court found that the lower courts’ approach to the reasonableness of the cost was incorrect, restating the compensatory principle that an injured party is entitled to compensation which, so far as money can do, will put them in the same position as they would have been in if the tort had not been committed. The Court said that ‘in assessing the reasonableness of that choice, all the circumstances should be considered and compared with those circumstances that existed prior to the tort. The assessment of reasonableness is not confined to balancing only the health benefits against the cost.’
The High Court found that Mr Stewart’s choice to reside at home was a reasonable means of repairing the consequences of MNHSS’ wrongdoing, particularly when considering the increase to the quality of his physical and mental health. Once proven, it was for MNHHS to show good reason why it should not be liable to pay that compensation to Mr Stewart. The Court found that MNHHS did not prove that care provided in a residential facility would improve Mr Stewart’s health to the same degree, and as such there was no good reason why they should not be liable for the additional costs.
The Supreme Court of Queensland will now consider the re-assessment of Mr Stewart’s damages.