Have any questions? Call us: 
A court has awarded $160k for the additional income a determined young man might have achieved but for ongoing back pain caused by an at-fault driver.
After a night in Caboolture hospital following a car crash nearby, 14-year-old Tyson Ardis-Phasey’s most obvious injuries were seatbelt bruising to his abdomen and facial injury from an impact inside the vehicle.
The December 2019 collision was not catastrophic, but inside the car Tyson took a heavy blow to the cheek, probably from the knee of a friend thrown forward in the impact.
The force briefly knocked him unconscious. Tyson appeared to be the least seriously injured and was the last of the group to be ambulanced to the hospital.
Most symptoms settled quickly. What did not resolve was pain in his lower back that began the morning after he left hospital.
At first it was simply discomfort but two weeks later he sought medical attention in Morayfield complaining that the pain had persisted.
Tyson eventually filed an injury compensation claim in early 2025 in which Allianz – the third party insurer for the at fault driver – admitted fault but contested the extent of his injuries and in particular that in his lower back.
The dispute reached the Brisbane District Court in February 2026 when Tyson was 20 years old and occupied the court for three days.
Motivated only by suspicion he was exaggerating, the insurer targeted Tyson as someone who was unreliable and whose statements could not be believed.
What the insurer didn’t like was that – unlike a broken bone visible on an X-ray – pain in the lumbar spine can exist without clear structural abnormalities.
And that his symptoms were largely self-reported with a description of steady pain of about four out of ten most days, rising to six or even eight when aggravated by work or physical exertion.
Judge Benard Porter KC was however impressed by the claimant’s account of his difficulties over nearly a day and a half of evidence and cross-examination.
The judge described him as a disciplined and truthful young man who frequently gave answers that were not particularly helpful to his own case, something judges often treat as a strong indicator of honesty.
Allianz was also apparently impressed as ultimately it did not seriously challenge his reliability.
The medical evidence was more contested.
Orthopaedic specialist Andrew Boyce who was called in support of Tyson’s case while the insurer relied on evidence from neurosurgeon Michael Todman.
The court ultimately preferred Boyce’s reasoning and assessed the overall impact of the injuries at an ISV of 9, which translated into $15,300 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities of life.
Judge Porter then turned his mind to considering whether the claimant would sustain a loss of income earning capacity in the future. To do this he examined his recent history.
He noted that despite the persistent pain, Tyson largely refused to let it stop him living like any other teenager.
He had returned to playing soccer and only stopped in 2022 after his coach died.
School records showed that he often had to lay on the classroom floor to ease his back while still completing his work.
When his mother moved away during his final year, Tyson stayed behind in a caravan on a friend’s property so he could finish Year 12, doing yard work in exchange for rent.
After school, he worked for about a year washing houses and roofs. The job involved physical labour on pitched roofs and ladders.
Tyson admitted the work aggravated his back and sometimes slowed him down. Co-workers testified that they occasionally swapped tasks with him so he could avoid the worst strain.
Eventually he moved into lighter work at a Costco warehouse where he could complete full shifts, although surveillance footage showed him stretching his back regularly throughout the day.
“The surveillance evidence is helpful”, observed Judge Porter, “ironically, because it tends to confirm his evidence that the effect of the back injury is persisting and ever present”.
The insurer pointed to his muscular physique– that the judge described as “quite a rig” – as evidence he was able to effectively use the muscles in his lower back.
In the judge’s view such physical development demonstrated “discipline and determination” and did not detract from the claim that his pain was nevertheless ever-present.
Allianz resisted Tyson’s contention that his injury would restrict the sort of physical, outdoor work for which he seemed best suited, reducing his earning capacity over the next four decades of working life.
It argued for only a modest global amount of $50,000 because Tyson was still able to work.
Judge Porter took a broader view observing that the claimant appeared to be an unusually determined young man who, without injury, might have pursued physically demanding trade or semi-skilled work and pushed himself harder than most employees.
The injury – the judge reasoned – might “clip his wings” in precisely that area where he would otherwise have excelled.
Balancing Tyson’s resilience against the long-term limitations imposed by chronic back pain, the judge awarded $160,000 for future economic loss. An additional $6,000 was allowed for physiotherapy and strengthening treatment designed to improve the condition, plus $1,500 for agreed out-of-pocket expenses.
The total judgment came to $182,800.
Ardis-Phasey v Neal & Anor [2026] QDC 25 Porter L, 27 February 2026
Categories: Damages