The recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision in Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited [2025] QSC 180 is an important reminder of two key aspects of Queensland personal injury law: the power of civil juries in dust disease claims, and the cost consequences of failing to accept a reasonable settlement offer under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).
This case not only highlights how asbestos-related personal injury claims are determined in Queensland, but also serves as a strong warning to defendants who choose to run litigation to trial rather than reasonably engage with settlement offers.
In this blog, we break down the facts, the decision, and the significance of the case for injured plaintiffs and their legal representatives.
Brown v Seltsam: Case Background on Asbestos Dust Exposure
The plaintiff, Beverley Ailsa Brown, brought proceedings against Seltsam Pty Limited (formerly known as Wunderlich Ltd). Her claim was based on exposure to asbestos dust and fibres from products manufactured or supplied by the defendant. Like many dust disease victims, Ms Brown alleged she developed a serious dust-related illness because of that exposure. The claim proceeded to trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland and was heard before a civil jury.
This is a distinctive feature of Queensland law: in certain categories of claims, particularly those involving dust diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma, plaintiffs are entitled to have their matters determined by a jury rather than solely by a judge.
The jury returned a verdict in favour of Ms Brown, awarding her the significant sum of $1,602,313.00 for the injuries, loss, and damage she suffered. However, the case did not end there. The next important question was: who should pay the legal costs, and on what basis?
The Settlement Offer
Before trial, Ms Brown had taken a pragmatic step to try to resolve the matter without further litigation. On 4 April 2025, she served an offer under rule 353 UCPR to settle her entire claim for $900,000 plus costs. This offer was not accepted by Seltsam Pty Limited. Ultimately, when the jury returned its verdict, the award of $1.6 million was significantly higher than the settlement sum Ms Brown had proposed.
This triggered the operation of rule 360(2) UCPR, which is designed to encourage parties to settle litigation where reasonable offers are made.
The Legal Framework for Costs
Under the UCPR, the general rule is that the unsuccessful party must pay the costs of the successful party. However, the rules also provide enhanced consequences where a party unreasonably rejects a settlement offer. Specifically, rule 360(2) UCPR states that if:
1. A plaintiff makes a written offer to settle;
2. The defendant does not accept that offer; and
3. The plaintiff then obtains a judgment not less favourable than the offer, the court must order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the indemnity basis from the day after the offer was made, unless some other order is appropriate in the circumstances. Costs on the indemnity basis are higher than standard costs. They entitle the successful party to recover a greater proportion of their actual legal costs, and are generally regarded as a penalty for failing to reasonably settle.
The Defendant’s Arguments
Faced with the prospect of paying indemnity costs, Seltsam Pty Limited sought to resist the plaintiff’s application. The defendant argued that the costs consequences under rule 360(2) should not apply because the plaintiff’s case had materially changed after the settlement offer was made. The defendant pointed to three developments:
1. Amendments to the Statement of Claim – the plaintiff made significant amendments to her pleadings after the date of the offer.
2. New expert reports – multiple expert reports were obtained and disclosed after the offer, affecting both the assessment of liability and the quantum of damages.
3. Additional witness statement – the plaintiff tendered a witness statement under section 92(1)(b)(i) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) during trial, which had not been disclosed at the time of the offer.
The defendant’s position was that these changes meant the case it faced at trial was very different from the one at the time of the offer. Therefore, it argued, it would be unfair to impose indemnity costs consequences.
Treston J Decision on Costs
Justice Treston rejected the defendant’s submissions. Her Honour carefully analysed the circumstances and concluded that the core allegations and evidentiary foundation of the plaintiff’s case had not materially changed.
• The amendments to the pleadings did not fundamentally alter the claim;
• The additional expert evidence supplemented but did not transform the strength of the case; and
• The extra witness statement was consistent with the existing evidence and did not create a new factual landscape.
Importantly, Justice Treston found that the defendant already had sufficient information at the time of the offer to make a reasonable assessment of the risks of litigation and the potential value of the claim. Accordingly, the statutory presumption in rule 360(2) applied. The final costs order was:
• Standard basis costs up to and including 4 April 2025 (the date of the offer); and
• Indemnity costs from 5 April 2025 onwards.
This meant that the defendant not only had to pay a judgment more than $700,000 higher than the rejected settlement, but also had to pay the plaintiff’s legal costs on the more generous indemnity basis for the majority of the proceedings.
The Role of the Jury
One of the striking features of this case is that it was heard as a civil jury trial. Under section 73 of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), the court may order a jury trial in civil proceedings. This is particularly relevant for dust disease claims, where historical practice and community standards have supported the use of juries. In such cases:
• The jury is the finder of fact. It decides liability and assesses damages.
• The judge oversees legal issues, rules on admissibility of evidence, and deals with costs and procedural matters.
Unlike judge-alone trials, there is no written judgment analysing the facts or reasoning behind the verdict. The jury delivers its decision, but does not provide written reasons. As a result, the only published judgment from this case is Justice Treston’s ruling on costs, not on the substantive issues of liability or damages.
Important Factors
The decision in Brown v Seltsam is significant for several reasons:
1. Plaintiff-Friendly Costs Protection – It reinforces the protective mechanism of rule 360(2). Plaintiffs who make reasonable settlement offers can expect indemnity costs if defendants unreasonably reject them.
2. Encouragement of Early Settlement – Defendants in dust disease and other personal injury claims must carefully evaluate offers. The risks of running to trial and losing are not limited to damages but extend to punitive cost consequences.
3. Certainty for Plaintiffs – Injured individuals can be reassured that the law gives them leverage in settlement negotiations, and protects them against the financial risks of protracted litigation.
4. Jury Trials in Queensland – The case is another reminder that juries continue to play an active role in civil litigation in Queensland, particularly in asbestos and dust-related matters.
Conclusion
The ruling in Brown v Seltsam Pty Limited [2025] QSC 180 highlights the risks for defendants in rejecting reasonable settlement offers and underscores the ongoing role of juries in Queensland asbestos and dust disease litigation. For plaintiffs, it provides reassurance that the law is structured to encourage fair settlement and to protect those who make genuine efforts to resolve their cases early.
Ultimately, Ms Brown not only succeeded in her claim but also secured a costs order that reflects the defendant’s failure to engage with her reasonable settlement proposal. This case serves as a powerful precedent for future dust disease litigation and a reminder that strategic settlement offers can dramatically shift the costs landscape in favour of injured plaintiffs.
If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.
