What are the opening hours?

Monday 8:30am - 5pm Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm Thursday 8:30am - 5pm Friday 8:30am - 5pm

http://www.revolutionlaw.com.au/

Revolution Law, 5/254 Kingston Road, Brisbane (2026)

08/10/2026

HE HARDLY WENT TO THE DOCTOR. SO WAS HE REALLY INJURED?
Jack Bauer was just 18 years old and a newly qualified carpenter when his car was struck at high speed in Bundaberg by a stolen vehicle fleeing police. The impact pushed his car into a gutter and fence.
Liability for the crash was admitted. But there was a problem when it came to proving his injuries: Jack hardly sought medical treatment.
He saw a GP only twice after the accident — once six days later, when the record said he was “feeling well”, and then not again for another ten months. He also avoided medication and had significant anxiety around medical treatment.
The twist? The Court believed him.
The judge found Jack to be unusually understated and stoic. Importantly, his reluctance to seek medical treatment wasn't something that suddenly appeared after the crash — there was evidence he had avoided doctors for years beforehand. Other evidence, including the severity of the collision and his physical limitations, also supported his account.
The Court accepted that he had suffered a genuine cervical spine injury which affected his ability to continue working at full capacity as a carpenter.
He was awarded $602,008.14 in damages — and remarkably, approximately $527,535 was for future loss of earning capacity.
It's an interesting reminder that medical records are important, but a lack of regular treatment doesn't necessarily mean an injury isn't genuine. Courts look at the evidence as a whole.

*** This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and depends on its individual circumstances.
Source: Bauer v Clay [2025] QSC 114, Supreme Court of Queensland, 22 May 2025.

08/10/2026

Sometimes you’ve just gotta smash it out. 🔨

The Slacks Creek team at Revolution Law team swapped desks for demolition at our Smash Up day — a little team bonding, a lot of laughs, and a few plates, printers and random objects that definitely didn’t survive the afternoon.

Safe to say, stress levels were lower by the end of it. 😄

05/10/2026

🚑 SHE WASN’T IN THE CRASH — SHE WAS THE PARAMEDIC WHO CAME TO HELP.

In 2018, Queensland Ambulance Service paramedic Sonia Grapes attended a horrific single-vehicle crash at Mount Tamborine.
She spent about an hour caring for a badly injured passenger whose arm had been almost completely amputated.

The experience had a profound psychological impact. Her ability to cope at work deteriorated, she eventually stopped working and was diagnosed with PTSD.

The twist? Her potential claim arose from a car accident she wasn't actually involved in. Ms Grapes later sought to pursue a CTP damages claim against the driver and insurer.

But there was another problem: time.

Queensland's limitation period had expired. She asked the Supreme Court to extend the time, arguing, among other things, that she had not identified the driver and CTP insurer until much later.

The Supreme Court refused the extension.

Ms Grapes appealed, but in 2025 the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, finding that reasonable steps could have been taken earlier to identify the driver and insurer.

It’s a powerful example of two things people don't always associate with motor vehicle claims:

Psychological injury can arise without being physically involved in the collision — and legal time limits can matter enormously.

*** This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and depends on its individual circumstances.
Sources: Grapes v AAI Limited [2024] QSC 267; Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60

01/10/2026

SHE WASN’T WEARING THE SAFETY GLOVES — AND IT CHANGED EVERYTHING.

A Queensland print machine operator suffered a serious injury to her dominant hand and thumb while cleaning part of a printing machine. Her injury required surgery.

She later brought a damages claim against her employer, arguing that it had failed to provide a safe system of work.

The twist? The safety equipment was already there.

Her employer produced evidence that cut-resistant gloves had been supplied and workers had been trained to wear them when performing the task.

The worker admitted she wasn't wearing the gloves when she was injured. She told the Court she had subconsciously chosen not to put them on because she was in a hurry.

The District Court found that she had not established that her employer breached its duty of care and dismissed her claim. The judge also found that, had damages otherwise been payable, they would have been reduced by 50% for contributory negligence because she had not used the supplied protective equipment.

It’s an interesting reminder that workplace injury claims aren't simply about what an employer did or didn't do.

A worker's own actions — including whether supplied safety equipment and instructions were followed — can also matter.

*** This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and depends on its individual circumstances.
Source: Nemet v Hally Labels Pty Limited [2025] QDC, District Court of Queensland, 4 April 2025.

28/09/2026

WORKCOVER SAID HIS JOB WAS A “SHAM”. THE COURT DISAGREED.
Carlo Germanotta worked in his family’s North Queensland cane-harvesting business. In 2018, he was seriously injured when a tractor he was repairing fell from a jack and crushed him, causing significant spinal and nerve injuries.
The company accepted responsibility for the accident. But when Carlo pursued damages, WorkCover argued that he wasn’t really an employee at all.
The twist?
There was no formal written employment contract, and WorkCover pointed to later accounting changes — including the reversal of wages — as evidence that the employment arrangement was not genuine.
The Court looked beyond the paperwork. Before the accident, Carlo had been paid regular wages, had tax deducted, received superannuation and appeared on the company payroll.
It found that he was genuinely employed and awarded $1,299,113.33 in damages.
WorkCover appealed — but in 2026, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
It’s an interesting reminder that, particularly in family businesses, employment arrangements aren't always neat and formal. What actually happens in the working relationship can be more important than what the paperwork looks like later.
This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and compensation depends on individual circumstances.
Sources: Germanotta v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 329; WorkCover Queensland v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 124.

24/09/2026

TWO DRIVERS. ONE HEAD-ON CRASH. BOTH SAID THE OTHER WAS AT FAULT.
In July 2015, Dane Manton — one of Revolution Law's first clients — was seriously injured in a head-on collision on Bribie Island Road, suffering multiple fractures and a brain contusion.
Both drivers said the other had crossed onto the wrong side of the road. Both brought claims alleging the other was responsible — and, unusually, both were insured by the same CTP insurer.
So how do you prove what really happened when the stories don't match?
The case went to the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the physical evidence became critical. The position of debris, gouge marks on the roadway and other evidence helped establish that the collision had occurred in Dane's lane.
The Court found that the other vehicle had crossed the centre line. Dane was found not to have caused or contributed to the collision.
The other driver appealed — but the Queensland Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.
It's a powerful reminder that after a serious accident, seemingly small pieces of evidence can become incredibly important. Photos, road markings, debris, police evidence and independent witnesses can help tell the story when people's recollections don't agree.
And this case is very special to us: 💙Dane was represented by Revolution Law.
Sources: Manton v Harris & Anor [2020] QSC 102 and Harris v Manton & Anor [2020] QCA 241.

21/09/2026

WORKCOVER ACCEPTED HIM AS A WORKER. SO WHY DIDN’T THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE HIM AN EMPLOYEE?
An experienced Queensland carpenter with almost 40 years in the trade agreed to do a day’s work for cash on an Ipswich building site. While cutting roof sheets, he fell from a ladder and suffered serious leg and ankle injuries.
WorkCover Queensland accepted his workers’ compensation application and treated him as a “worker”. That decision was later confirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator.
The twist? That wasn’t the end of the question.
When the carpenter pursued common-law damages, the Court had to determine the true nature of the working relationship. It found that he had been operating as an independent subcontractor, not an employee. WorkCover's earlier acceptance of his statutory compensation claim did not prevent that issue being considered again for the damages claim.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the original Court found that the ladder supplied was inappropriate for the task and that there had been a breach of duty. Had he qualified as a worker, damages would have been assessed at roughly $475,000. But because of his employment status, his claim was dismissed.
The Queensland Court of Appeal upheld that outcome in June 2025.
It’s an interesting reminder that in workplace injury claims, how you are engaged to work can sometimes be just as important as how the accident happened.
This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and compensation depends on individual circumstances.
Source: Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 116, Queensland Court of Appeal, 27 June 2025.

18/09/2026

🐱 REAL QUESTIONS. STRAIGHT ANSWERS.
"I swerved to miss a cat." Most of us would.
Your instinct kicks in, you turn the wheel, and hope for the best.

But if swerving to avoid an animal causes you to crash, the legal position isn't always as straightforward as people think.
If no other vehicle was involved, a CTP claim generally isn't available because CTP insurance covers injuries caused by a driver's negligence. However, every accident is different. The circumstances of the crash, who or what was involved, and the type of insurance you have can all make a difference.
As hard as it sounds, road safety experts generally recommend that if avoiding an animal would put you or other road users at greater risk, it's often safer to brake firmly and maintain control of your vehicle rather than swerve.
Every Queenslander who lives outside the city knows this dilemma. Nobody wants to hit a beloved family pet or native wildlife, but losing control of your car can have devastating consequences.
If you've been injured in a crash, don't assume you know where you stand. A quick chat can often clear things up.
☎️ Have a question you've always wanted to ask an injury compensation lawyer?
Drop it in the comments or send us a message. It might feature in a future edition of Real Questions. Straight Answers.

17/09/2026

WHAT IF YOU ALREADY HAD HEALTH PROBLEMS BEFORE AN ACCIDENT?
A 2025 Queensland Supreme Court case provides an interesting look at what happens when an accident aggravates conditions that were already there.
In Murphy v Madill, the plaintiff had longstanding psychiatric conditions before two separate motor-vehicle-related incidents affected him.
In the first, he came across a serious crash and stopped to help a man who had been struck by a vehicle and later died. In the second, his own vehicle was hit from behind on the Pacific Motorway. Liability was admitted.
The twist? His medical history did not automatically defeat his claim.
The Court had to carefully separate what was already there from what the accidents had caused, aggravated or made worse. It accepted that the accidents caused or exacerbated psychiatric and physical injuries, while rejecting other injuries as unrelated to the accidents.
The plaintiff was ultimately awarded $635,146.81, including more than $331,000 for future economic loss and approximately $107,700 for future paid assistance.
It is a useful reminder that having a pre-existing condition does not automatically mean you cannot make a personal injury claim. The important question is what changed because of the accident and what loss flowed from that change.

*** This is a publicly reported Queensland court case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and compensation depends on individual circumstances. Source: Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103, Supreme Court of Queensland, 22 May 2025***

14/09/2026

HE WAS AWARDED $2.19 MILLION - AND STILL APPEALED. WHY?
Michael Stewart was catastrophically injured following negligent treatment at Redcliffe Hospital in 2016. He was left with brain damage, paralysis and the need for lifelong assisted care.
In 2024, the Queensland Supreme Court initially awarded him approximately $2.19 million in damages, including provision for his future care in an institutional setting.
The twist? Mr Stewart appealed because he wanted to live at home.
Before his injuries, he lived at home, where his son and dogs could stay with him. Following his injuries, he was living in institutional care and sought compensation for the additional cost of receiving the care he needed in a home of his own.
In September 2025, the High Court of Australia unanimously ruled in his favour, finding that the assessment of reasonableness should not be reduced to comparing the additional cost of home care with its health benefits.
The decision is a fascinating reminder that compensation can be about much more than a dollar figure - it can also be about how an injured person is able to live their life after a catastrophic injury.
***This is a publicly reported Queensland case and was not a Revolution Law matter. Every claim is different and compensation depends on individual circumstances. Source: Stewart v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] HCA 34, High Court of Australia, 3 September 2025***

Revolution Law

08/10/2026

08/10/2026

05/10/2026

01/10/2026

28/09/2026

24/09/2026

21/09/2026

18/09/2026

17/09/2026

14/09/2026

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	8:30am - 5pm
Tuesday	8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday	8:30am - 5pm
Thursday	8:30am - 5pm
Friday	8:30am - 5pm