If you have a workers’ compensation or personal injury claim in Queensland, there is a reasonable chance your insurer is paying closer attention to you than you might expect. Surveillance of injured workers is a well-established practice, and the digital era has made it significantly more accessible. Understanding what WorkCover and other insurers can do, and what it means for your claim, is one of the most practical things you can know while your matter is on foot.

Why Insurers Use Surveillance

Insurers have a financial interest in testing the accuracy of an injured person’s reported symptoms and limitations. When a claim involves significant ongoing incapacity payments or a large lump sum entitlement, it is not uncommon for a workers’ compensation insurer to engage surveillance operatives or review an injured worker’s digital footprint.

This is not always a sign that the insurer suspects fraud. In some cases, routine monitoring is part of how a claim is managed. In others, surveillance is specifically targeted because something in the medical evidence or the claim history has raised a question the insurer wants answered. Whatever the reason, footage or photographs that appear to contradict a worker’s reported limitations, even where the context is entirely innocent, can be used to challenge credibility at a hearing or settlement conference.

What Can Insurers Actually Do?

Physical surveillance

Insurers can engage surveillance operatives to film or photograph an injured person in public settings. In Queensland’s motor vehicle accident (CTP) scheme, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission has published Claims Management Standards that regulate this practice. Under those standards, an insurer conducting surveillance must have a reasonable basis, such as a genuine suspicion that the claimant is providing misleading information, or that the claim is inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Workers’ compensation insurers operating under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) are not bound by those specific CTP standards, but they are still required to conduct surveillance lawfully. The key legal principle is that surveillance must occur in, or be conducted from, public places, or from locations where a person can be observed by members of the public going about their ordinary activities.

Filming someone on private property without consent can be unlawful. A recent Queensland District Court decision, Ardis-Phasey v Neal & Anor [2026] QDC 25, addressed this directly. The court was critical of surveillance operatives who filmed a plaintiff inside his workplace and inside a private shop without the consent of the occupants. The judge found there was a strong argument the filming amounted to unlawful trespass. Footage obtained in those circumstances carries real risk for the party who obtained it.

Social media monitoring

Insurers and defence lawyers routinely review publicly available social media content. Posts on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Strava and similar platforms have all appeared in Queensland personal injury proceedings. Courts have confirmed that social media content is discoverable in the same way a diary or personal document would be.

In Digby v Compass Institute Inc & Anor [2015] QSC 308, Atkinson J described Facebook as “the equivalent of an ongoing diary of social events” and ordered the plaintiff to provide access to her account. That reasoning applies equally to any platform where a person documents their activities.

Recent Queensland decisions show how consequential this can be. In Jaksa v Sweeny & Anor [2025] QDC 2, a plaintiff claiming a right shoulder injury was photographed holding a large fish with her arm extended well above her shoulder, and a video emerged of her performing the splits at a work Christmas party. The court found the evidence was inconsistent with the injuries she had pleaded, and her entitlement to damages was assessed for her neck injury only. In Bullock v Wraight & Anor [2025] QDC 85, a plaintiff was found to have amplified her symptoms, in part based on surveillance footage showing a fuller range of movement than she had reported. The claim remained on foot, but the damages awarded were modest.

The judge in Jaksa noted it is appropriate to be cautious about drawing conclusions from one or two images. The difficulty in that case was the volume and consistency of the social media evidence over time. A series of posts depicting activity that contradicted the plaintiff’s reported limitations carried more weight than any single image would have.

Does Surveillance Have to Be Disclosed?

As a general rule, yes. Once a party obtains surveillance material, it is usually disclosable under Queensland’s civil procedure rules. This applies to injured workers as well as insurers. Claimants have disclosure obligations under section 279 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), section 22 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and, for CTP claims, section 45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). Queensland courts have interpreted the scope of what must be disclosed broadly, including social media content, photographs and videos. A claimant who fails to disclose relevant material, or who destroys it, risks serious consequences including adverse findings about credibility at trial.

There is an important exception on the insurer’s side. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, disclosure of surveillance material can sometimes be delayed until after cross-examination at trial, to avoid alerting a claimant and undermining further investigation. In public liability claims under PIPA, a respondent may apply to the court on an ex parte basis for approval to withhold disclosure. Once proceedings are underway and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) apply, an equivalent application can be made under Rule 223, potentially allowing surveillance to be deployed as a surprise during cross-examination.

For claimants, this means it is possible to reach a trial without knowing surveillance footage exists. That is a significant risk if the footage appears inconsistent with your stated symptoms, even where the reality is more nuanced.

What Injured Workers Should Do

None of this means you need to delete your social media accounts or live in fear of being photographed in public. What it does mean is that your digital presence and your public activities should be consistent with what you are reporting to your treating doctors, your insurer and your legal team.

Courts recognise that people behave differently in social settings than in clinical ones, and that a photograph does not capture the full picture of living with an injury. In Ardis-Phasey, the judge found in the plaintiff’s favour despite the surveillance footage. He accepted that a young man pushing through pain and trying to live as fully as possible was entirely understandable, and that this did not undermine the credibility of his claim. Context and a thorough explanation of the circumstances mattered.

The claims that hold up under scrutiny tend to share a common feature: the injured person was honest throughout. The claims that run into difficulty tend to share a different one: there was a gap between what the person reported to their doctors and what the footage or social media showed. That gap, even when it has an innocent explanation, is what creates vulnerability.

Practical steps if you have an active claim

• Be consistent. What you tell your treating doctors, your WorkCover insurer and your legal team should accurately reflect your day-to-day experience, including on your best days and your worst.
• Be honest about your activities. If you attended a social event, went fishing or helped a friend move house, tell your lawyer. Trying to conceal it creates far more risk than the activity itself.
• Think carefully before posting. A photo taken on a good day, without any explanatory context, can look very different to a court examining it months or years later.
• Do not delete existing posts without legal advice. Deleting content after a claim has commenced can be treated as destruction of evidence, which carries its own legal risks.
• Tell your legal team about any surveillance you become aware of. Your lawyer can advise whether it has been properly disclosed and how to address it in the context of your claim.

When to Get Legal Advice

The team at AX Compensation Lawyers regularly advises injured workers on how to manage their claims, including how to respond if surveillance or digital evidence becomes an issue. If your claim is straightforward and your injuries are modest, it may be that you do not need legal representation at all. But if your insurer is disputing the extent of your injuries, or if surveillance has emerged in your claim, getting proper legal advice early is important.

Our WorkCover lawyers assist injured workers across Queensland, including on the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Toowoomba. We work on a No Win, No Fee* basis, which means you don’t pay legal fees unless we help you receive compensation.

Not sure where you stand after an injury at work? Book an obligation free consultation with the team at AX Compensation Lawyers. We will explain how Queensland law applies to your situation, and there is no obligation to proceed.

This article was written by the team at AX Compensation Lawyers, personal injury lawyers helping Queenslanders understand their rights after an injury.

*No Win, No Fee conditions apply. You don’t pay legal fees unless your claim is settled. Conditions available on request.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can insurers put surveillance on an injured worker in Queensland?

Yes, but it must be conducted lawfully. In practice, that means filming or photographing a person in public places, or from locations where they can be observed by members of the public. Surveillance that involves trespass or filming on private property without consent may be challenged, and courts have been critical of operatives who cross that line.

Can my social media posts be used in my workers’ compensation claim?

Yes. Public posts, photos and videos on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Strava can be reviewed and, if relevant, used as evidence. Queensland courts have treated social media as discoverable material, and posts that appear inconsistent with your reported injuries can affect how a court views your claim.

Does surveillance have to be disclosed to me?

Usually, yes. As a general rule, surveillance material is disclosable once a party has it. There is an exception where fraud is suspected, and in those circumstances disclosure may be delayed until cross-examination at trial. It is therefore possible, in some cases, to reach a hearing without knowing surveillance footage exists.

Will one photo or short video automatically hurt my claim?

Not necessarily. Courts recognise that a single image only shows a moment in time, and context matters. The cases where social media evidence has caused real damage have generally involved a pattern of posts or footage that was extensive and consistent over time, not a single photograph taken on a good day.