Key Legal Principles
In Stewart the High Court reaffirmed the compensatory principle of tort law: that damages should, so far as money can do so, restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred. The Court highlighted that the assessment of damages should not be reduced to a simple comparison of health benefits against financial costs but should consider the reasonableness of the injured party’s choices in response to their condition.
The Court found that Mr. Stewart, who suffered catastrophic injuries due to the respondent’s negligence, was entitled to compensation that would allow him to live in a rented home with his son and dog, rather than in an institutional setting where his health had been deteriorating. The Court held that this choice was reasonable and a legitimate means of repairing the consequences of the tort. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the claimed costs arose from an unreasonable decision to reject institutional care.
The evaluation of reasonableness of Mr Stewart’s model of care was not discharged by balancing only the health benefits against the increased cost. The choice of home care was a reasonable means of repairing the consequences of the negligence. The respondent did not establish that the claimed costs could be avoided but for an unreasonable decision by Mr Stewart to refuse a proffered alternative option.
Where a person lived in their own home or in a home setting prior to the tort, and the restoration of that position will be beneficial, or at least not detrimental to their physical or mental health, it would be unusual to find that a person’s choice to receive treatment at home was unreasonable.
Comparison with Sharman v Evans
Sharman v Evans focused on the “touchstone of reasonableness” when evaluating the costs of care against health benefits. In Sharman, it was held that Ms Evans’ preference to live at home with her mother was unreasonable, due to heightened health risks and a lack of psychiatric benefits.
By contrast, the Court in Stewart acknowledged the evolving context of care in 2025, recognising that home care can be associated with psychological and quality-of-life benefits.
Implications for Damages Awards
The High Court’s decision in Stewart affirms that the injured party’s autonomy and quality of life are critical factors in determining reasonable compensation. As a result, damages awards, particularly for future care, are likely to increase significantly reflecting the true cost of restoring a claimant to their pre-injury position.
In the case of Mr Stewart, future care costs increased to $4,753,241.47 from the previously awarded sum of $1,081,895.56.
The HCA decision can be found Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34
For a summary of the earlier lower court decisions in Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service see our blog posts here and here.
