Damages in Commercial Litigation in Qld

Damages in Commercial Litigation

Damages in commercial litigation are a monetary award intended to compensate a party for loss or harm resulting from the wrongful conduct of another.

Damages can arise in a wide range of disputes, including contract breaches, negligence claims, property disputes, and defamation cases.

In Queensland, claimants must not only prove they have suffered a loss, but must also clearly articulate the nature, scope, and amount of the damages being sought.

This process is governed by strict procedural rules designed to ensure fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.

There are various categories of damages in commercial litigation, such as general damages, special damages, exemplary damages, and aggravated damages. Each type has its own pleading and evidentiary requirements.

Failing to identify and substantiate damages properly may significantly undermine a claim and expose it to challenge.

The Role of Rule 155 of the UCPR in Queensland

Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) sets out the mandatory pleading requirements for claims involving damages in commercial litigation.

It applies whenever a party seeks damages in commercial litigation in their statement of claim, defence, or counterclaim.

The rule compels parties to provide detailed particulars of the damages claimed, including:

1. The nature of the loss or damage.
2. The circumstances in which the damage was suffered; and
3. The basis or method by which the amount of damages has been calculated or estimated.

Additionally, Rule 155 requires that each type of general damages be separately pleaded where practicable.

It also obliges parties to disclose any matters relating to the assessment of damages in commercial litigation that might otherwise catch the opposing party by surprise.

This rule plays a pivotal role in Queensland litigation by enhancing procedural clarity and ensuring that all parties are fully informed of the case they must meet.

It aligns with the overarching purpose of the UCPR: to facilitate the just and expeditious resolution of disputes at a reasonable cost.

Importance of Correctly Pleading Damages

Correctly pleading damages under Rule 155 is not just a matter of good practice—it is a procedural necessity.

Courts in Queensland have repeatedly emphasised that vague, unparticularised, or “global” damage claims will not suffice. A failure to properly plead damages in commercial litigation may lead to:

1. A request or court order for further and better particulars.
2. The striking out of parts of the pleading.
3. In extreme cases, dismissal of the damages claim altogether.
4. Delay and unnecessary legal costs.

Furthermore, improperly pleaded damages can impair a party’s credibility and may weaken their position during negotiations or mediation.

For example, where the damages claimed are not linked to the alleged breach or misconduct, the claim may appear speculative or inflated.

In short, compliance with Rule 155 is essential to presenting a strong, credible, and procedurally sound claim for damages in commercial litigation in Queensland.

Overview of Rule 155 UCPR (QLD)

Rule 155 of the UCPR outlines how damages in commercial litigation cases must be pleaded in Queensland civil litigation.

The rule applies to all parties—whether plaintiffs, defendants, or counterclaimants—who seek damages.

It requires damage claims to be clearly stated, justified, and quantified, rather than raised in vague or general terms.

Rule 155 does not stand alone. It works alongside Rule 150, which requires all material facts to be pleaded, and Rule 158, which governs aggravated and exemplary damages.

These provisions ensure that damages in commercial litigation are not just asserted but substantiated, allowing the other party to respond meaningfully.

This rule promotes fairness and case efficiency. By requiring parties to specify the type of damage, how it occurred, and how it was calculated, Rule 155 ensures better case management and prevents tactical surprise.

Courts have confirmed its broad application, including in emotional distress and defamation claims. In Robertson v Dogz Online [2011] QSC 158, for instance, the court required more detail even where the plaintiff claimed solatium.

Ultimately, Rule 155 underpins the principle of a level playing field. It ensures that all litigants in Queensland must adequately disclose, quantify, and explain their claimed losses from the outset of proceedings.

The Legal Source and Application

Rule 155 of the UCPR is a fundamental rule governing how damages in commercial litigation must be pleaded in Queensland civil litigation.

It is part of Chapter 6, Part 2 of the UCPR, which deals with the rules of pleading.

Rule 155 applies to any party in Queensland who is claiming damages in a court pleading, whether in an originating claim, a defence, or a counterclaim.

This rule operates in tandem with other related provisions, especially Rule 150, which requires a party to plead all material facts relied upon, and Rule 158, which governs the pleading of aggravated and exemplary damages.

Collectively, these provisions ensure that damage claims are not only asserted but substantiated, with enough particularity to allow the opposing party to understand and respond appropriately.

Why Rule 155 Matters in Civil Proceedings

Rule 155 plays a critical role in maintaining procedural fairness, case clarity, and efficiency in Queensland courts.

It ensures that claims for damages in commercial litigation are not made in vague or sweeping terms but are instead clearly defined and supported adequately from the outset of proceedings.

The rule protects defendants from being ambushed by unsubstantiated damage claims, which could otherwise require extensive and unnecessary preparation.

By compelling plaintiffs (or any party claiming damages) to clearly outline the nature of the damage, how it occurred, and how it was calculated, Rule 155 also aids judicial officers in managing the case and determining whether a claim has any merit on its face.

For example, in the case of Robertson v Dogz Online [2011] QSC 158, the court held that even in claims involving solatium (compensation for emotional distress, such as in defamation), Rule 155 still applies.

The plaintiff was ordered to amend the statement of claim because it failed to state the extent of the damages being sought.

This illustrates that Rule 155 is not confined to negligence or commercial disputes; it has a broad, general application across all damage claims in civil proceedings.

Ultimately, Rule 155 ensures that litigation in Queensland is conducted on a level playing field, with all parties required to disclose, quantify, and explain the damages they are seeking—right from the outset.

Essential Requirements for Pleading Damages

Under Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), parties claiming damages in civil proceedings must state the nature of the harm and the amount claimed.

This includes clearly outlining categories of loss—such as economic, reputational, or emotional—and how each figure was calculated.

Special and general damages must be particularised, identifying the circumstances of the loss and the method of valuation.

The rule ensures transparency and procedural fairness by requiring parties to disclose these details early in the litigation process.

Further, Rule 155 mandates that separate types of general damages be individually identified where practicable and that any matters likely to surprise the opposing party, such as expert evidence or lost commercial opportunities, be fully disclosed.

Queensland courts have repeatedly enforced these obligations, warning that vague or global damage claims risk being struck out or amended.

Overall, Rule 155 plays a vital role in promoting clarity, preventing ambush tactics, and ensuring that damages are properly substantiated before trial.

Stating the Nature and Amount of Damages

Under Rule 155(1) of the UCPR, any party claiming damages in civil proceedings must state both the nature of the damages and the amount being claimed.

This requirement applies whether the damages arise from breach of contract, negligence, defamation, or any other civil cause of action.

Simply stating that “damages are claimed” is insufficient. The claim must disclose:

1. What kind of harm was suffered (e.g., financial loss, reputational damage, emotional distress)?
2. How much compensation is being sought for each type of harm.
3. A breakdown, where applicable, of special damages (such as medical expenses, repair costs, or lost earnings).

This ensures the opposing party is fully informed of the financial implications of the claim and can prepare a response or defence accordingly.

Particulars of Damages in Commercial Litigation

Where general damages are claimed, for example, for pain and suffering, inconvenience, or loss of amenity, Rule 155(2) imposes a further obligation to include specific particulars. These include:

1. The nature of the loss or damage suffered – for example, emotional distress, loss of business opportunity, or loss of reputation.
2. The exact circumstances in which the loss or damage occurred – such as a defamatory statement being published online, or a negligent delay in project delivery.
3. The basis on which the amount claimed has been worked out or estimated – this might involve reference to comparable past cases, expert opinion, or commercial projections.

This requirement is crucial in helping the court assess the validity and credibility of the damages claim. It also provides a procedural safeguard to prevent claims from being speculative or unsubstantiated.

For example, in Grenning v Ware [2005] QSC 82, the court criticised the plaintiff for failing to comply with Rule 155(2)(c) when pleading loss of income due to defamation.

The plaintiff did not explain how the amount claimed was calculated, and the court ordered further particulars to be provided. Helman J said at [17]:

The argument before me was directed to the claim to the $249,038.46. It is not sufficiently clear from the pleading how it is calculated, so whether it is characterized as a claim to general damages … or to special damages rule 155 has not been complied with. That is because rule 155(2)(c) requires that a party claiming general damages must include particulars of the basis on which the amount claimed has been worked out or estimated, and rule 155(4) requires a party claiming damages must specifically plead any matter relating to the assessment of damages that, if not pleaded, may take an opposing party by surprise.

Identifying Each Type of General Damages

In line with Rule 155(3), where it is practicable, a party must also separately identify each type of general damages being claimed and explain the nature of each.

This is particularly relevant in complex claims involving:

1. Multiple plaintiffs with different types of loss.
2. Claims for both economic loss and non-economic loss.
3. Damages arising from multiple causes of action.

For instance, in defamation proceedings involving a corporate and an individual plaintiff, the corporation cannot claim aggravated damages, so it is essential to plead damages specific to each plaintiff.

In Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029, the court reinforced that different categories of damages in commercial litigation – such as general, aggravated, and exemplary – require distinct factual bases and must be individually pleaded. McMurdo J said at [34]:

… the pleading seems to make no proper distinction between the matters relied upon to claim aggravated damages and those relied upon for exemplary damages. Indeed, there seems to be no pleading of any facts in support of the former. And because a corporation cannot claim for wounded feelings, nor can it claim aggravated damages. Contrary to r 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, the pleading does not state the amount of the damages claimed.

Failure to distinguish between types of damages in commercial litigation can render the claim defective and expose it to objections, delays, or orders to amend.

Avoiding Surprise: Pleading All Relevant Matters

Rule 155(4) also imposes a critical obligation: a party must specifically plead any matter relating to the assessment of damages that might take the opposing party by surprise if not disclosed. This includes:

1. Claims involving lost commercial opportunities;
2. Anticipated reliance on expert valuation or forensic accounting;
3. Matters affecting mitigation of loss include efforts to reduce damage.

In Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd v Byrne [2016] QSC 221, the court emphasised that plaintiffs claiming loss of opportunity must identify:

1. The lost opportunity with precision.
2. What they would have done differently.
3. The percentage or likelihood of achieving the benefit.
4. The amount claimed is based on those probabilities.

Jackson J states at [50]:

First, it is necessary for a plaintiff who alleges loss of a valuable commercial opportunity to plead that the loss it has suffered is a loss of a valuable commercial opportunity, identifying the opportunity with some particularity. Second, it is also necessary that the plaintiff pleads what it would have done, where what the plaintiff would have done if the defendant had not been in breach of duty is a necessary causal condition to deciding factual causation. Third, it is necessary for a plaintiff who alleges such a loss to plead the percentage or proportion of the opportunity that was lost, in assessing value on the possibilities, in order to plead the amount of the damages claimed, as is specifically required. Fourth, where a plaintiff alleges a loss of a 100 per cent possibility or the certainty that they would have obtained the hoped for or expected benefit under a transaction which did not occur, it is to be expected that the plaintiff will allege with some particularity the facts by which that certain outcome would have been achieved.

This rule reinforces that surprise tactics have no place in modern civil litigation. Transparency is key, and parties are expected to disclose how their damages are calculated and what evidence they intend to rely upon—well in advance of trial.

Additional Pleading Requirements

Under Rule 155(3) of the UCPR, parties must separately identify and explain each type of general damages they seek where practicable.

This includes distinguishing between pain and suffering, loss of amenities, or reputational damage, depending on the case.

The goal is to prevent ambiguity, especially in complex or multifaceted disputes.

Courts routinely reject blanket or “global” damages claims that fail to specify the distinct heads of damage and their causal links.

This principle also applies when multiple plaintiffs or defendants are involved, requiring a clear attribution of claims to avoid prejudice or confusion.

In addition, when aggravated or exemplary damages are claimed, Rule 158 demands that parties plead all supporting facts with precision.

These non-compensatory damages in commercial litigation are closely scrutinised due to their punitive nature. A corporate plaintiff cannot claim aggravated damages, which are premised on emotional harm.

Courts also criticise pleadings that blur the line between aggravated and exemplary damages, particularly when facts are not clearly tied to one or the other.

Types of General Damages Must Be Itemised

Under Rule 155(3) of the UCPR, if practicable, a party claiming damages must plead each type of general damages separately and identify the nature of the damage claimed for each type.

This ensures clarity and prevents confusion about what compensation is being sought and on what basis.

For instance, a claimant in a personal injury case might be entitled to:

1. General damages for pain and suffering.
2. Damages for loss of amenities of life.
3. Damages for future loss of earning capacity.

Each of these must be clearly itemised and explained. Likewise, in defamation proceedings or commercial disputes, a party might plead for reputational harm, loss of business income, and mental anguish, each of which constitutes a distinct head of damage requiring separate pleading.

Failure to itemise can lead to allegations of ambiguity or non-compliance with procedural rules.

Courts expect parties to make a genuine effort to distinguish and quantify each type of loss, rather than adopting a blanket or “global” claim.

Distinct Pleading for Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

When aggravated or exemplary damages are sought, Rule 158 (read together with Rule 155) requires that full particulars of all supporting facts be pleaded.

These forms of damages in commercial litigation are not compensatory but punitive in nature, and courts scrutinise them closely.

• Aggravated damages are awarded where the defendant’s conduct has caused additional hurt or humiliation.
• Exemplary damages are punitive, awarded to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct.

In Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029, the court made clear that a corporate plaintiff cannot claim aggravated damages, highlighting the need to tailor damage claims to the nature of the plaintiff and the legal foundation of the claim.  McMurdo J said at [34]:

And because a corporation cannot claim for wounded feelings, nor can it claim aggravated damages.

This makes clear that a corporate plaintiff (such as the third plaintiff in this matter) cannot make a claim for aggravated damages, as such damages are premised on the existence of “wounded feelings,” which a company cannot experience.

The court’s reasoning highlights the necessity to tailor claims for damages in commercial litigation to the nature of the plaintiff (individual versus corporation) and the type of claim being made.

Paragraph 34 further criticises the plaintiffs’ pleading for failing to properly distinguish between aggravated and exemplary damages and for not pleading sufficient facts to support a claim for aggravated damages, especially given the corporate plaintiff’s status.

Therefore, the court emphasises both the limitation on the types of damages a company can pursue and the broader point that the quantum and kind of damages claimed must align with the plaintiff’s legal personality and the legal foundation for the claim.

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Global Claims

A recurring procedural issue in Queensland litigation is the use of “global” damages claims – where a party attempts to lump all losses together without distinguishing between them.

This approach has been widely criticised and often leads to pleadings being struck out or amended.

In Leinenga v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294, the Court highlighted the plaintiff’s failure to attribute specific damages to specific acts of misfeasance or negligence.  Mullins J said at [101]:

The types of damages alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiffs and described in that paragraph are not quantified, no basis of calculation is therefore disclosed and the plaintiffs have failed to identify which of the described categories of damages flows from each alleged act of misfeasance in public office or negligence.

The court held that such blanket assertions are impermissible, particularly in misfeasance claims, where a direct link between the wrongful act and the loss is legally required.

This problem is widespread in construction litigation and commercial lease disputes, where delay or disruption claims can be complex.

The courts have stressed, including in Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184, that a claim must do more than assert a consequence; it must plead the causal connection between conduct and damage in specific terms.

The judgment refers to Byrne J’s discussion in John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 8 VR 681, noting that the basis of an application to strike out the pleading was “that there was no allegation of a causal link between breach and loss” and observes that “Byrne J stated that mere difficulty of estimating the damages flowing from a breach was not sufficient to deny relief to a plaintiff.”

Dealing with Joint Plaintiffs or Multiple Defendants

When a case involves multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants, the rules around pleading damages in commercial litigation become even more critical.

Each plaintiff must clearly state their individual claim, supported by facts unique to their position. Similarly, damages must be explicitly attributed to the acts of each defendant where applicable.

This ensures the court can assess liability and compensation on a case-by-case and party-by-party basis.

Vague or collective damage claims may unfairly prejudice one party or confuse the scope of the claim, leading to procedural objections and delays.

The Interaction Between Rule 155 and Related Rules

Under Rule 155(3) of the UCPR, parties claiming general damages must, where practicable, itemise each type of damage and clearly explain its nature.

This rule ensures transparency and allows the defendant and the court to understand precisely what compensation is being sought and why.

For example, a claimant might distinguish between pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and future income loss.

In defamation or commercial cases, different forms of harm—such as reputational damage, business interruption, and mental distress—must be separately pleaded.

Courts discourage vague or “global” damages claims, as they tend to obscure the legal and factual basis for each component of compensation.

Where aggravated or exemplary damages are pursued, Rule 158 mandates full particulars of the facts supporting those claims.

These damages serve punitive or deterrent purposes and must be clearly distinguished from compensatory damages in commercial litigation.

Courts have criticised global or undifferentiated claims, particularly in commercial or construction matters.

When multiple plaintiffs or defendants are involved, each claim and its causal link to the alleged damage must be individually specified to ensure procedural fairness and judicial clarity.

Rule 150(1)(b): Pleading Material Facts of Loss or Damage

Rule 150(1)(b) of the UCPR requires that pleadings contain:

a statement of all the material facts on which the party relies.

When read together with Rule 155, it becomes clear that pleading damages in commercial litigation involves more than merely listing a dollar amount or describing the injury; it requires the inclusion of all material facts from which that loss can be inferred or assessed.

Rule 150 provides the structural framework, while Rule 155 supplies the content standard for damages. Together, they require the claimant to:

1. Set out the factual basis of the wrongful conduct (under Rule 150).
2. Set out how that conduct caused the loss and what the quantified damages are (under Rule 155).

The court in Leinenga v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294 illustrated this principle, criticising pleadings that failed to specify what damage flowed from each alleged act of misfeasance or negligence. Mullins J said at [100]:

The plaintiffs have failed to properly plead damages. No attempt is made to identify what damage is said to flow from each alleged act of misfeasance and each alleged act of negligence.

The judgment made it clear: a claimant must link the facts of the case to each specific head of damage claimed.

Rule 158: Particularising Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

Rule 158 complements Rule 155 by setting additional requirements for claims involving exemplary or aggravated damages in commercial litigation. Under Rule 158(2), a party must provide particulars of all matters relied upon in support of such claims.

This rule is fundamental in:

1. Defamation cases, where aggravated damages are often claimed;
2. Claims involving malicious or oppressive conduct, where exemplary damages may be appropriate.

Read our article – Damages in Defamation Claims – Complete Guide.

The need for specificity here is stringent. As the court held in Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029, the pleading must not only describe the defendant’s conduct but must also identify how that conduct aggravated the plaintiff’s damage or justifies punishment. Without these particulars, the claim is exposed to being struck out.

This ties into Rule 155(4), which requires that any matter affecting the assessment of damages and which might take the other side by surprise must be expressly pleaded.

Harmonising the Rules for Effective Pleadings

interaction between Rules 150, 155, and 158 demonstrates the UCPR’s comprehensive approach to procedural fairness and efficient litigation. Each rule has a role to play:

1. Rule 150 ensures that all essential facts are disclosed.
2. Rule 155 mandates the form and detail of damage claims.
3. Rule 158 safeguards fairness in punitive damage claims.

Practitioners must therefore treat Rule 155 as a central obligation in all damages pleadings, not an optional step. Strategic compliance with these interconnected rules enhances the credibility of a claim, prevents delays, and increases the chances of early settlement or successful adjudication.

Case Law Illustrating Rule 155 in Practice

Rule 155 of the UCPR has been the subject of significant judicial interpretation in Queensland.

Courts have consistently reinforced the need for strict compliance with the rule when pleading damages in commercial litigation.

Below is an analysis of leading cases that illustrate how courts apply Rule 155, the common pitfalls, and the consequences of non-compliance.

Leinenga v Logan City Council

The Leinenga v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294 case is often cited as a clear example of what not to do when pleading damages.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office and negligence against the council but failed to link their damages to specific acts. Mullins J stated at [100]:

No attempt is made to identify what damage is said to flow from each alleged act of misfeasance and each alleged act of negligence… This is impermissible.

The court criticised the plaintiffs for lodging a “global” damages claim, attributing a three-day delay in development approval to every act of alleged wrongdoing, without particularising how each act caused damage.

Mullins J made it clear that a corresponding, identifiable consequence must accompany each pleaded act.

Key takeaway: Plaintiffs must attribute specific loss to specific conduct. Generalised or catch-all claims will not satisfy Rule 155.

Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA

Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184, while a New South Wales case, this decision is influential in Queensland construction disputes and underscores the dangers of global damages claims.

The NSW Court of Appeal condemned the practice of asserting a lump-sum loss without establishing a causal link between breach and damage. Basten JA stated at [189]:

A convenient starting point is the decision of Byrne J. The fact that his Honour was dealing with an application to strike out a pleading, which succeeded, makes it an unlikely authority for the propositions attributed to it by Mainteck. His Honour was dealing with a claim that the defendant’s alleged breaches had caused all of the contractor’s losses, calculated by reference to the difference between the tender estimate and the actual costs. The basis of the application to strike out the pleading was that there was no allegation of a causal link between breach and loss.

Although not applying UCPR directly, this case has been repeatedly cited in Queensland courts to support the requirement under Rule 155 that damages in commercial litigation be itemised and linked to discrete breaches.

Key takeaway: Lump-sum or “global” claims are vulnerable to being struck out unless a clear and particularised connection is made between wrongful acts and losses claimed.

Dive v Chapman

In the Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029 decision, McMurdo J highlighted the need to differentiate between types of damages, specifically general, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

The plaintiff, a corporation, attempted to claim aggravated damages, which are unavailable to corporations.

The court emphasised that distinct facts must support each type of damage, and that pleading must reflect the individual circumstances of each plaintiff.

Key takeaway: Parties must:

1. Separate out each category of damages.
2. Avoid claiming what they are not entitled to.
3. Ensure that facts supporting each damage type are expressly pleaded.

Seabrook v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd

In Seabrook v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2005] QCA 58, McPherson JA emphasised that the plaintiff’s claim for aggravated damages was based on specific features of the defendant’s conduct, which were improper or unjustifiable, thus warranting additional damages if proven at trial.

The court noted that care must be taken to avoid “doubling up” on damages in commercial litigation, ensuring that the jury does not award separate damages for the same conduct under both general and aggravated damages

Key takeaway: You may rely on the same factual matrix for different damage types, but you must clearly identify how those facts support each claim.

Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd & Anor

The Court of Appeal case of Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] QCA 113 dispelled a common myth that a party can defer compliance with Rule 155 by stating that a statement of loss and damage under Rule 547 will be provided later.

The court was clear at [6]:

Those requirements are not satisfied by the allegations in paras 11 and 12 of the statement of claim in this instance. Nor is there any reason to suppose it was not ‘practicable’ to plead those matters in the statement of claim. Matters of that kind were incorporated in the plaintiff’s Statement of Loss and Damage dated 28 February 2000, which was filed in the court on the following day. There is nothing to suggest that such of those matters as fell within the scope of Rules 150(1) and 155(2) and (3) could not have been included or pleaded in the statement of claim.

McPherson and Thomas JJA held that the pleading itself must disclose the damages, including amounts, nature, and supporting particulars.

A vague assertion that an expert report will quantify the damage later is insufficient.

Key takeaway: Do not rely on Rule 547 to circumvent the requirements of Rule 155. You must plead damages adequately from the outset.

Grenning v Ware

Grenning v Ware [2005] QSC 82 deals with loss of income in a defamation case. Helman J held that the plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 155(2)(c) by not disclosing the basis of the calculation, saying at [17]:

… rule 155 has not been complied with. That is because rule 155(2)(c) requires that a party claiming general damages must include particulars of the basis on which the amount claimed has been worked out or estimated, and rule 155(4) requires a party claiming damages must specifically plead any matter relating to the assessment of damages that, if not pleaded, may take an opposing party by surprise. The obvious deficiency in the particulars is in the failure to explain why a loss of $35,000 per annum is the basis of the claim to March 2001, and then a loss of $70,000 per annum applies until the end of 2002.

The court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars to enable the defendant to understand the claim and prepare a proper defence.

Key takeaway: In any damages claim, especially economic ones, you must explain how the loss is calculated. This is not optional.

Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd v Byrne

In Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd v Byrne [2016] QSC 221, Jackson J provided critical guidance on how to plead a claim for loss of a valuable commercial opportunity, which is often difficult to quantify.

His Honour set out four essential elements that must be pleaded at [50]:

1. The opportunity must be identified with particularity.
2. What the plaintiff would have done differently must be stated.
3. The percentage or likelihood of success must be estimated.
4. The monetary value of the loss must be pleaded based on probabilities.

This ruling also established that counterfactual scenarios must be expressly pleaded, what the plaintiff would have done if not for the defendant’s conduct.

Key takeaway: Claims for lost opportunities require particular pleading under Rule 155, or they risk being struck out for inadequacy.

Robertson v Dogz Online

In the defamation case of Robertson v Dogz Online [2011] QSC 158, A Lyons J rejected the plaintiff’s argument that damages were unquantifiable because they related to solatium (i.e. emotional hurt).

The court ruled that even non-economic loss must be stated with some measure of quantification, and that the plaintiff must amend the claim to comply with Rule 155, Ann Lyons J saying at [33]:

It is clear that as s 35 of the Defamation Act imposes a statutory cap of $250,000 for non economic loss which therefore confines the ambit of the plaintiff’s claim to that extent. Accordingly the defendants are well aware of the potential scope of that aspect of the claim. The defendants are entitled however to know the full extent of the damages claimed.

Key takeaway: Claims involving reputation, emotional distress, or pain and suffering are still subject to Rule 155. The defendant is entitled to know the extent of the damages sought.

Quantifying Loss: Practical Expectations

Pleading damages under Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) is not just about stating that a loss has occurred; it requires a claimant to quantify the damages in commercial litigation in practical, factual terms.

Queensland courts have made it clear that broad or vague assertions of loss are not enough.

Instead, a pleading must clearly outline how the amount claimed was worked out or estimated, even if that amount is still subject to further expert evidence or disclosure.

A Statement of Loss is Not a Substitute for Proper Pleading

A standard error made by practitioners is to plead damages in commercial litigation briefly, while promising to provide a Statement of Loss and Damage under Rule 547 at a later stage.

Queensland courts have unequivocally rejected this approach.  In Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] QCA 113, the Court of Appeal ruled that:

Those requirements are not satisfied by the allegations in paras 11 and 12 of the statement of claim in this instance. Nor is there any reason to suppose it was not “practicable” to plead those matters in the statement of claim. Matters of that kind were incorporated in the plaintiff’s Statement of Loss and Damage dated 28 February 2000, which was filed in the court on the following day. There is nothing to suggest that such of those matters as fell within the scope of Rules 150(1) and 155(2) and (3) could not have been included or pleaded in the statement of claim.

The court held that compliance with Rule 155 must occur at the time of pleading, not through a later statement or expert report.

The reasoning is simple: the opposing party has a procedural right to understand the claim in full from the outset, not midway through the litigation.

Best practice: Include the quantified amount and the method of estimation directly in the statement of claim, even if the figures are preliminary or will be later supported by expert opinion.

Expert Reports Do Not Replace Pleading Requirements

Another procedural pitfall is relying too heavily on the idea that expert evidence will later support the damages claim.

While expert reports can validate or substantiate the amount claimed, they cannot replace the requirement to plead the damages with precision.

In Shaft Drillers International LLC v Australian Shaft Drilling Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 79, Jackson J stated at [5]:

The plaintiffs’ explanation for their proposal not to do so is that the amounts will depend on expert evidence and the defendants’ disclosure. That expert evidence is required is not normally a reason to relieve a party from the obligation to state a relevant amount in compliance with the rules as to pleading.

This principle was reinforced in Harris v Australand Apartments No 6 Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 204, where the court found that stating the “true value” of property would be the subject of an expert report was not enough.

The true value itself had to be pleaded as a fact, with the expert report merely forming part of the proof of that fact.

Key takeaway: You must plead the amount of loss and the basis of the claim, even if an expert report is still forthcoming. The pleading is the foundation; the expert report is the evidence.

Damages Based on Disclosure Must Still Be Estimated

Often, the precise amount of damage cannot be known until disclosure occurs, for example, where the value of lost profits depends on access to the defendant’s internal financial records.

However, Queensland courts have clarified that this does not excuse a failure to plead an estimate.

Parties must still:

1. Provide a provisional or conservative estimate of the damages in commercial litigation.
2. Explain the method of calculation (e.g. average turnover over a specified period).
3. Indicate that further information may refine the quantum.

Best practice: Use available data and reasonable commercial assumptions to formulate a pleading that complies with Rule 155, while reserving the right to amend once full disclosure has been made.

Allegations of “True Value” Must Be Stated as Facts

In Harris v Australand Apartments No 6 Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 204, the plaintiff argued that the “true value” of a property was a matter for expert opinion.

However, the court ruled that true value is a fact that must be pleaded, not deferred. The expert opinion may later prove the value, but the pleading must state what that value is believed to be.

Example of a compliant pleading:

“The plaintiff alleges that the true market value of the property, had the representations not been made, was $2,300,000, based on comparative sales in the area between January and March 2025.”

This kind of quantification meets the threshold set by Rule 155(2)(c): it shows the nature, circumstances, and basis of calculation.

Importance of Pleading the Basis of Assessment

Rule 155(4) mandates that if there is any matter relating to the assessment of damages in commercial litigation that could take the other party by surprise, it must be specifically pleaded.

This could include:

1. A claim for interest on damages.
2. Use of an alternative valuation method (e.g., discounted cash flow vs market comparison).
3. Intention to rely on future economic modelling.
4. Assumptions about third-party behaviour (e.g., that a customer would have signed a contract).

Failing to plead these bases of assessment may result in procedural disadvantage or orders requiring the claimant to amend their pleadings.

Summary of Practical Requirements for Quantifying Loss

Specific Categories of Damage and Rule 155

Different types of damages require different pleading strategies under Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

While the overarching principles of clarity, quantification, and particularisation apply across all damage claims, certain categories, such as loss of commercial opportunity, defamation damages, and aggravated or exemplary damages, bring their own unique challenges.

The following explores how Queensland courts expect parties to plead these specific forms of loss.

Loss of Commercial Opportunity

Claims for loss of a valuable commercial opportunity are among the most difficult to quantify and plead under Rule 155.

However, Queensland courts have laid down clear guidance requiring a structured and particularised approach.

In Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd v Byrne [2016] QSC 221, Jackson J set out the four essential elements that must be pleaded to comply with Rule 155 in this context:

Identification of the Opportunity

The pleading must describe the specific opportunity lost, not merely a generalised chance of future profit. For example:

“The plaintiff lost the opportunity to secure a lease with XYZ Pty Ltd valued at $1.2 million over five years.”

Counterfactual Causation

The plaintiff must allege what would have occurred if the defendant had not breached its duty. This includes a counterfactual scenario—what the plaintiff would have done differently.

Percentage or Probability of Success

Courts require an estimate of the likelihood of achieving the opportunity. Whether 100%, 75%, or 20%, the probability must be pleaded and supported by facts.

Valuation of the Opportunity

The damages claimed must reflect a quantified value, taking into account the likelihood of success. For instance:

“The plaintiff claims $300,000, representing 75% of the projected $400,000 profit margin from the opportunity.”

Best practice: Be realistic and specific. Avoid inflated “100% likelihood” claims unless clearly supported by factual allegations.

Defamation Damages in Commercial Litigation

Pleading damages in defamation actions involves heightened scrutiny because of the reputational and emotional nature of the harm.

Plaintiffs must comply fully with Rule 155, despite the intangible character of some losses.

In Grenning v Ware [2005] QSC 82, Helman J held that the plaintiff’s failure to specify the method of calculating lost income resulting from the defamatory statements violated Rule 155(2)(c).

The court ordered further particulars to allow the defendant to understand the quantum and reasoning behind the damages in commercial litigation.

In Robertson v Dogz Online [2011] QSC 158, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that solatium (emotional hurt) did not need to be quantified. A Lyons J held that even for emotional and reputational damage:

The defendants are entitled however to know the full extent of the damages claimed.

Best practice: When pleading defamation damages:

1. Itemise claims for economic loss (e.g., lost income, cancelled contracts).
2. Quantify non-economic loss (e.g,. emotional distress or reputational harm) with reasonable estimates.
3. Support aggravated damage claims with specific factual allegations of malice or improper motive.

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

Claims for aggravated or exemplary damages in commercial litigation are strictly regulated under Rule 158, but they must also satisfy Rule 155 in terms of quantification and factual basis.

Aggravated Damages

Aggravated damages in commercial litigation compensate for additional hurt or humiliation caused by the defendant’s conduct. These damages arise from:

1. Insulting or high-handed behaviour.
2. Failure to apologise or retract.
3. Malicious intent.

However, aggravated damages are not available to corporations, as held in Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029 (as discussed in this article).

Best practice: For individual plaintiffs, plead:

1. The specific conduct that caused additional distress.
2. How it aggravated the harm.
3. A separate figure for aggravated damages, if possible.

Exemplary Damages

Exemplary damages are punitive, awarded to punish and deter extreme misconduct. These must be expressly pleaded with supporting facts, including:

1. The nature of the wrongdoing (e.g., fraud, malice, oppression).
2. The motive or intent behind the conduct.
3. Why is punishment warranted beyond compensation.

The pleadings must also identify the amount sought or a reasonable basis for its assessment.

Key reminder: Under Rule 155(4), failing to plead matters relevant to the assessment of aggravated or exemplary damages, such as intent or recklessness, can lead to serious procedural consequences, including orders to amend the pleadings or strike out the claim.

Joint Plaintiffs and Multiple Damage Types

Where multiple plaintiffs are involved, each plaintiff’s damages must be pleaded separately.

Courts are reluctant to accept joint claims that fail to distinguish the harm suffered by each party.

This is especially relevant where:

1. One plaintiff is a corporation, and the other is an individual.
2. The parties claim different types of damages (e.g., one claims financial loss, the other claims reputational damage).

Best practice:

1. Clearly specify each plaintiff’s individual claims.
2. Avoid attributing a combined loss without breaking it down by plaintiff and damage type.

Pleading Emotional or Reputational Harm

Although more abstract in nature, claims for pain and suffering, emotional distress, or reputation damage still fall under Rule 155’s umbrella. The plaintiff must:

1. Explain how the harm was suffered.
2. Provide a basis for the claimed amount.
3. Describe the impact of the harm on the plaintiff’s personal or professional life.

In Seabrook v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2005] QCA 58, the court accepted that the same facts could support both general and aggravated damages, but insisted that the pleading must distinguish how the damages are characterised.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Rule 155

Failure to comply with Rule 155 of the UCPR can result in significant procedural and strategic disadvantages for a party claiming damages in commercial litigation.

Queensland courts have consistently emphasised that proper pleading of damages is not merely a formality; it is a core obligation that ensures transparency, procedural fairness, and efficiency in civil litigation.

A party that fails to plead damages in commercial litigation correctly may face consequences ranging from requests for particulars to court orders to amend pleadings or even partial or complete strike-out of the damages claim.

Court-Ordered Requests for Further Particulars

The most common consequence of an insufficiently pleaded damages claim is a request for further and better particulars, either informally by the other side or formally by court order.

For example, in Grenning v Ware [2005] QSC 82, the plaintiff claimed loss of income arising from defamation but failed to comply with Rule 155(2)(c) by not explaining how the amount was calculated. The court ordered the plaintiff to provide detailed particulars of the damages.

Key takeaway: If your claim does not specify the amount or basis of calculation, you can expect to be ordered to provide additional details—at your expense and with the risk of reputational damage to your case.

Strike-Out of Damages Claims or Entire Pleadings

Where a pleading is grossly deficient or non-compliant with Rule 155, the court may go further and order that the damages claim be struck out, either wholly or in part.

In Leinenga v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294, the plaintiffs pleaded a “global claim” for damages in commercial litigation without linking each alleged act of wrongdoing to a specific harm.

Mullins J held this impermissible under Rule 155 and criticised the plaintiffs for failing to make any effort to attribute loss to the relevant conduct.

The pleadings were subject to revision, with intense judicial criticism that would likely influence case outcomes.

Key takeaway: Failure to link the loss to the conduct complained of—especially in complex or multi-cause actions—can lead to the dismissal or striking out of key elements of the damages claim.

Delays, Costs Orders, and Tactical Disadvantage

Non-compliance with Rule 155 almost always results in procedural delays.

Amending pleadings, responding to orders for particulars, and dealing with objections from the opposing party increase legal costs and reduce the momentum of the case.

Courts may also issue adverse costs orders if they determine that a party’s failure to comply with Rule 155 caused unnecessary delay or wasted the court’s time.

This is especially likely where a party has ignored earlier requests to amend or provide particulars and is later compelled to do so by judicial intervention.

Moreover, insufficient damages in commercial litigation pleadings:

1. Weakens the claimant’s negotiating position in settlement talks.
2. Undermines credibility in court.
3. May be used by the opposing party to limit disclosure obligations, arguing that damages are not clearly defined or relevant.

Example: A party that has not adequately pleaded loss of opportunity or economic damages in commercial litigation may face resistance when requesting business records or financial disclosure from the defendant.

Impact on Summary Judgment and Strike-Out Applications

Defendants often use inadequate damages pleadings as a strategic basis to file strike-out or summary judgment applications.

If the pleadings do not comply with Rule 155, a defendant may argue that:

1. The pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action.
2. The damages claim is embarrassing or vague.
3. The lack of particulars prevents them from appropriately responding.

This can result in a court removing the damages component of the claim entirely or ordering significant amendments under tight timelines.

Practice tip: Do not give the other side procedural leverage. A well-particularised pleading not only strengthens your case but also prevents tactical challenges that can derail proceedings.

Preclusion from Relying on Evidence Not Pleaded

A party that fails to plead matters relevant to the assessment of damages in commercial litigation may later be precluded from leading evidence on those issues. This is particularly true of:

1. Aggravated or exemplary damages not identified correctly in Rule 158.
2. Claims for interest, costs, or future losses that were not previously disclosed.
3. Damages based on alternative valuation methods or assumptions.

Courts are reluctant to permit parties to spring new elements of a damages claim at trial.

Procedural fairness demands that the opposing party be given fair notice of all the material aspects of the case they must meet.

Example: In a commercial opportunity case, failure to plead the percentage likelihood of success or the value of the opportunity may prevent a party from calling expert valuation evidence on those matters at trial.

Missed Opportunity for Early Resolution or Mediation

Litigation is expensive and time-consuming. One of the key purposes of Rule 155 is to facilitate early resolution of disputes by clearly identifying the damages being claimed and how they are calculated.

If damages in commercial litigation are unclear or unquantified, it becomes difficult for the opposing party to evaluate the risk or make informed settlement decisions. This may result in:

1. Failed mediations.
2. Prolonged litigation.
3. Increased stress and legal costs for all parties.

Best practice: A well-drafted, Rule 155-compliant pleading increases the likelihood of early settlement or mediation success, especially in commercial or reputational matters.

Summary of Consequences for Non-Compliance

Best Practices for Pleading Damages in QLD

To successfully plead damages in commercial litigation in Queensland under Rule 155 of the UCPR, legal practitioners must go beyond generic assertions of harm.

Courts require a structured, particularised, and strategically sound approach that aligns with the rule’s requirements and judicial expectations.

Adequately pleaded damages not only avoid procedural setbacks but also increase the strength and credibility of the overall claim.

Link Damages to Specific Misconduct

One of the most critical best practices is to clearly attribute each item of damage to a specific act or omission by the defendant. Courts routinely criticise “global” damages claims that fail to establish a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the loss.

Instead of:

“As a result of the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of $500,000.”

Use:

“As a result of the defendant’s failure to deliver goods by the agreed date of 1 March 2024, the plaintiff was unable to fulfil a resale contract valued at $300,000, resulting in lost profits of $90,000.”

Why it matters: This meets Rule 155(2)(b) by identifying the circumstances of the loss and Rule 155(2)(c) by stating the basis for the amount claimed.

Avoid Global or Aggregated Damages Claims

Where the claim arises from multiple breaches or heads of claim, you must itemise the damages per breach.

Courts have repeatedly rejected global figures that attribute all losses to a group of wrongs.

This is especially relevant in:

1. Construction disputes with multiple delay events.
2. Professional negligence with compound conduct.
3. Defamation involving a series of statements or publications.

Best practice: Create a damages schedule that:

1. Lists each event or breach.
2. Quantifies the damage from that event.
3. Explains the basis of the calculation.

This practice not only satisfies Rule 155 but also makes litigation more manageable at trial or mediation.

Plead Each Damage Type Separately

Where practicable, Rule 155(3) requires that each category of general damages be stated separately.

This ensures transparency and helps the court assess damages appropriately.

Example:

• Pain and suffering: $50,000
• Loss of amenities of life: $30,000
• Future loss of income: $70,000

If claiming special damages in commercial litigation (such as out-of-pocket expenses), itemise each component clearly in the pleading or a schedule.

Include All Matters Affecting Assessment

Under Rule 155(4), any matter that could affect the assessment of damages and might take the defendant by surprise must be specifically pleaded.

Examples include:

1. That the plaintiff intends to rely on a discounted cash flow method of valuation.
2. That interest is claimed from a particular date.
3. That tax implications have been considered in calculating the loss.
4. That a secondary impact, such as reputational damage, affects ongoing commercial relationships.

Failure to plead these matters may result in:

1. Being barred from relying on specific evidence.
2. Adverse costs.
3. Damage to the party’s credibility at trial.

Prepare for Disclosure and Amendment

While Rule 155 requires parties to state a quantified claim, it is acceptable to plead that the amount is estimated based on available information and reserve the right to amend once further documents or expert reports become available through disclosure.

Tip: Use phrases such as:

“The amount claimed is an estimate based on preliminary accounting records. The plaintiff reserves the right to amend the quantum following full disclosure.”

This ensures compliance while preserving flexibility.

Damages in Commercial Litigation – Key Takeaways

Properly pleading damages under Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) is not merely a technical step; it is a foundational requirement that significantly impacts the trajectory and success of civil litigation in Queensland.

Whether a party is pursuing claims for breach of contract, negligence, defamation, or commercial loss, the courts expect damages in commercial litigation to be clearly articulated, quantified, and causally linked to the conduct complained of.

Rule 155 ensures that litigation proceeds on a level playing field by requiring each party to disclose the nature, extent, and basis of their loss.

It protects defendants from surprise claims, enables efficient case management, and allows the court to assess the credibility and seriousness of a claim from the outset.

Judicial commentary and case law—such as Leinenga v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294, Dive v Chapman [2006] QSC 029, and Huddy Nominees Pty Ltd v Byrne [2016] QSC 221, highlight the pitfalls of vague or global damages claims.

Repeatedly, courts have confirmed that a general assertion of loss is not enough.

Parties must show what was lost, how it was lost, and what it is worth, backed by facts, not assumptions.

In practice, compliance with Rule 155 offers several strategic advantages:

1. It strengthens the claim’s integrity.
2. It reduces the risk of procedural challenge.
3. It supports effective mediation and early resolution.
4. It enhances the prospects of recovering the full extent of damages at trial.

For litigation practitioners in Queensland, Rule 155 is not just a procedural rule; it’s a litigation strategy in itself.

Pleading damages in commercial litigation with care, precision, and transparency sets the stage for a stronger case, more informed settlement negotiations, and a higher likelihood of success in court.

In short, plead damages sufficiently – or risk losing them entirely.

Pleading Damages in Commercial Litigation – FAQ

Navigating damages claims in Queensland civil litigation requires strict compliance with Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Below are answers to the most commonly asked questions by legal practitioners, claimants, and defendants. These FAQs explain how to plead damages properly, avoid procedural pitfalls, and strengthen your position in court or during settlement negotiations.

What is Rule 155 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in Queensland?

Rule 155 of the UCPR (Qld) governs how damages in commercial litigation must be pleaded in Queensland civil litigation. It requires parties to state the nature and amount of damages, including particulars such as how the loss occurred and how the amount was calculated. This rule applies broadly to all claims involving compensation, from personal injury to defamation and commercial disputes.

Why is Rule 155 important in Queensland litigation?

Rule 155 ensures that damage claims are transparent, specific, and fair. It prevents parties from ambushing opponents with vague or excessive damages later in proceedings. By requiring clear pleading of loss and its value, the rule facilitates case management, encourages early resolution, and promotes procedural justice in Queensland civil courts.

What must be included in a compliant damages pleading under Rule 155?

A compliant pleading must include: (1) the nature of the loss; (2) how the loss occurred; and (3) the method of calculating the amount claimed. Each category of general damages must be separately stated where practicable. The pleading must also disclose any matter affecting damages assessment that could surprise the opposing party.

Can I defer pleading damages by providing a statement of loss later?

No. Queensland courts have ruled that stating you’ll provide a damages statement later under Rule 547 does not satisfy Rule 155. The damages in commercial litigation must be quantified and particularised in the original pleading. Any delay or deferral can expose your claim to objections, amendment orders, or procedural costs.

What happens if I don’t comply with Rule 155?

Failure to comply with Rule 155 can result in court orders to provide particulars, strike-out of the damages claim, costs penalties, and delays. It can also damage your credibility and limit your ability to introduce evidence later. Queensland courts take non-compliance seriously and will not accept vague or generalised damage claims.

What is a global damages claim and why is it a problem?

A global damages claim is when a party pleads a lump sum without linking it to specific acts or events. Courts have consistently ruled that global claims are impermissible under Rule 155 because they fail to show which conduct caused what loss. Each type of loss must be tied to the relevant breach.

Do I need to plead the calculation method for damages?

Yes. Under Rule 155(2)(c), a party must explain how the amount of damages was worked out or estimated. This includes referencing documents, expert reports, comparable valuations, or prior earnings. Courts expect a rational basis—not speculative figures—with enough information for the opposing party to understand and respond to the claim.

Can emotional distress or reputational harm be claimed under Rule 155?

Yes, but such claims must still meet the requirements of Rule 155. You must state the nature of the harm, how it occurred, and provide a reasonable estimate of its value. Courts expect even intangible losses—like distress or loss of reputation—to be particularised and quantified as far as practicable.

Can a corporation claim aggravated damages?

No. Aggravated damages are not available to corporations. Only individuals can claim for emotional harm, humiliation, or distress. If both an individual and a company are plaintiffs, their damage claims must be pleaded separately, and the company’s claim must exclude aggravated damages or it risks being struck out.

What’s the difference between general and special damages?

General damages compensate for non-economic losses like pain and suffering or reputational harm, while special damages cover quantifiable losses such as medical expenses or lost income. Rule 155 requires you to separately identify and particularise each type, with clear factual support and calculation for each head of damage.

What is the court’s view on pleading future expert evidence for damages?

Courts have made it clear that future expert reports do not replace the requirement to plead damages in commercial litigation. You must state your estimate and calculation method in the pleading itself. The expert report can support or prove the pleaded amount but cannot be used as a placeholder for an incomplete pleading.

How should loss of commercial opportunity be pleaded?

You must identify the opportunity, explain what you would have done differently, state the probability of success, and quantify the loss based on that probability. Queensland courts require clear and structured pleading of such claims. A vague assertion of lost chance will likely be struck out or amended.

Can the same facts support multiple types of damages?

Yes, but you must clearly state which facts support which type of damages. For example, a fact may support both general and aggravated damages, but it must be attributed correctly in the pleading. Courts require that each damage type be justified on its own factual foundation.

What if disclosure is needed before damages can be finalised?

You can plead an estimated amount based on available information and state that full quantification will follow disclosure. However, Rule 155 still requires that you make a genuine effort to plead a figure and explain the basis for it—even if it is subject to later amendment.

Do I need to plead interest as part of my damages?

Yes, if you intend to claim interest on damages, it should be included in your pleading. Rule 155(4) requires disclosure of any matter relevant to damages assessment that could take the defendant by surprise, and this includes interest calculations or assumptions about timeframes for compensation.

Can failure to plead damages properly affect settlement or mediation?

Absolutely. Poorly pleaded damages in commercial litigation reduce clarity and hinder the defendant’s ability to assess settlement value. This can delay negotiations, increase costs, and make mediation less effective. A well-pleaded damages claim supports early resolution and enhances credibility with the court and the opposing party.

Are damages schedules or tables useful in pleadings?

Yes. Using a damages schedule or table to itemise each loss type is highly effective, especially in complex cases. It promotes clarity, compliance with Rule 155, and judicial efficiency. Courts appreciate concise and well-organised presentations of damages, particularly in construction, commercial, and professional negligence cases.

What are the strategic benefits of complying with Rule 155?

Compliant pleadings improve your negotiating position, avoid procedural challenges, reduce court delays, and make your case more persuasive. Courts and opponents take a well-particularised claim seriously. Rule 155 is not just a technical rule—it’s a litigation advantage when used correctly.

Can I amend a damages pleading in a claim after filing?

Yes, but only with the court’s permission or the opposing party’s consent. It’s better to plead thoroughly from the outset. While Rule 155 doesn’t prevent amendments, courts may scrutinise late changes, especially if they introduce surprise or prejudice. Amendments should clarify—not cure—deficient original pleadings. A statement of claim can be amended without leave until there is a trial date.

How does Rule 155 apply to multiple plaintiffs or defendants?

When multiple parties are involved, damages must be clearly attributed to each plaintiff or defendant. You cannot group all claims together without distinguishing who suffered what loss or who caused it. Courts expect separate pleading of losses for each party to avoid confusion and procedural unfairness.