The Perils of Poor Pleadings: Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs
In this essential episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in Cootharinga North Queensland v Wolfs [2025] QCA 106, which serves as a masterclass on the critical importance of properly articulating the risk of harm in personal injury pleadings. The case involved a disability support worker who suffered a knee injury when a client opened a car door into her, but whose common law claim nearly failed due to fundamental defects in her statement of claim—despite this being her third attempt at pleading her case.
The Court of Appeal’s analysis demonstrates that pleadings in personal injury cases are not simple forms that can be copied from precedents, but intricate documents requiring careful consideration of each element: duty, risk, breach, causation, and damage. The court found that Miss Wolfs’ pleadings failed to properly identify the actual risk of harm—that a client might open a car door when she was nearby—instead focusing on irrelevant manual handling codes and the broader activity of moving clients. This failure to articulate the precise risk led to substantial injustice for the defendant and risked prejudicing a fair trial, resulting in the strikeout of key paragraphs with leave to replead for what would be her fifth attempt.
Listen below for Michelle Wright’s detailed breakdown of this crucial decision and its lessons for personal injury practitioners. If you’ve been injured at work and need experienced legal representation to ensure your claim is properly pleaded from the outset, the team at accident legal understands the technical requirements for successful workers’ compensation and common law claims. Contact us for a free consultation to ensure your case is built on solid foundations and avoids the costly mistakes that can derail even legitimate injury claims.