Court cases for personal injury and negligence

PIC decisions

PIC Money awarded

1. Green v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2022] NSWPIC 317

The claimant suffered injuries including PTSD and claimed damages for past and future economic loss.

Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2022.

Amount awarded: AUD 169,209.22 total.

Breakdown:

• Past economic loss: AUD 41,831.
• Future economic loss: AUD 130,000.
• Fox v Wood: AUD 696.
• Less weekly statutory payments: AUD 3,317.78.
• Non-economic loss: nil / no claim.

Key principle: A claimant may receive damages for economic loss where PTSD and other injuries affect work capacity and earning ability.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2022/317.html

2. BWH v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 337

The claimant suffered PTSD, a left ankle injury and a left knee injury after a motor accident. Medical Assessors certified that the claimant’s permanent impairment was not greater than 10%, with PTSD assessed at 5% WPI and the left ankle injury at 4% WPI. The settlement included allowances for past and future economic loss.

Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2024.

Amount awarded: AUD 250,000 total settlement, less AUD 2,422.87 for weekly compensation.

Breakdown:

• Past economic loss: unspecified.
• Future economic loss: unspecified.
• Non-economic loss: nil because there was no entitlement.
• Weekly compensation deduction: AUD 2,422.87.
• Costs: unspecified.

Key principle: A settlement may be approved where PTSD, physical impairment and economic loss are all relevant to the claimant’s damages.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2024/337.html

3. Dyer v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2022] NSWPIC 417

The claimant suffered serious injuries and ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder after a head-on collision. The claim was for non-economic loss only. The Commission assessed damages at AUD 300,000 plus costs.

Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2022.

Amount awarded: AUD 300,000 damages plus costs.

Breakdown:

• Non-economic loss: AUD 300,000.
• Costs: awarded, amount unspecified.
• Past economic loss: not claimed / not applicable.
• Future economic loss: not claimed / not applicable.

Key principle: PTSD can support a significant non-economic loss award where the psychological injury is ongoing and serious.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2022/417.html

4. Zhao v Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance [2024] NSWPIC 624

The claimant’s damages assessment included a buffer for past and future economic loss. The Commission assessed the economic loss buffer at AUD 150,000 and also assessed the claimant’s costs.

Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2024.

Amount awarded: AUD 150,000 buffer for past and future economic loss, plus AUD 32,626.18 costs inclusive of GST.

Breakdown:

• Past and future economic loss buffer: AUD 150,000.
• Costs: AUD 32,626.18 inclusive of GST.
• Non-economic loss: unspecified.
• Other damages: unspecified.

Key principle: A court or tribunal may award a buffer amount for past and future economic loss where exact loss is difficult to calculate but reduced earning capacity is accepted.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2024/624.html

5. Tiwari v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2026] NSWPIC 251

The claimant suffered physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD. The Commission awarded damages for non-economic loss, past economic loss and future economic loss.

Jurisdiction and year: NSW PIC, 2026.

Amount awarded: AUD 811,658.10 total.

Breakdown:

• Non-economic loss: AUD 400,000.
• Past economic loss: AUD 19,695.10.
• Fox v Wood: AUD 14,963.
• Future economic loss: AUD 377,000.
• Costs / deductions: unspecified.

Key principle: PTSD and physical injuries can support a substantial damages award where they affect both non-economic loss and earning capacity.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2026/251.html

6. Insurance Australia Limited t/as NRMA Insurance v O’Keefe [2024] NSWPIC 457

Mr O’Keefe was a Rural Fire Service volunteer who suffered serious physical injuries and PTSD after a traumatic accident while responding to a fire. He later brought a motor accident damages claim against the insurer.

The Personal Injury Commission accepted that Mr O’Keefe suffered PTSD and major depressive disorder, together with physical injuries. The case considered the impact of those injuries on his work capacity, daily functioning, care needs, treatment expenses, and future economic loss.

The decision mentioned “obvious error”, but this was not an appeal or reconsideration of a previous decision. It was a damages assessment.

The Commission awarded Mr O’Keefe damages of $1,575,576.42 and costs of $100,477.04.

Key principle: PTSD can form a major part of a damages assessment where the psychological injury affects work capacity, daily functioning, relationships, and future care needs.

Important note: This case is useful for PTSD and a large damages award, but it should not be classified as an appeal case.

Case link: https://jade.io/article/1088960?at.hl=PTSD%252Cappealled

Appeal courts

1. Brickworks Ltd v Wright [2022] NSWPICPD 21

Mr Wright had previously suffered PTSD after an earlier work-related incident. Years later, while working for Brickworks, he claimed that workplace disciplinary action and conflict aggravated his underlying PTSD.

The Personal Injury Commission accepted that Mr Wright had suffered a psychological injury described as PTSD or an aggravation of PTSD, and awarded him weekly compensation.

Brickworks appealed the decision. The employer argued that its disciplinary action was reasonable under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act, that the Member had not properly considered the worker’s alleged threatening words and workplace policies, and that the worker should not receive compensation from Brickworks because he was also receiving payments from another insurer for the earlier injury.

The appeal was dismissed. The Presidential Member confirmed the Certificate of Determination, meaning Mr Wright kept the award of weekly payments.

The worker was awarded $1,944.22 per week from 23 September 2019 to 23 December 2019, and $1,637.24 per week from 24 December 2019 and continuing.

Key principle: An employer cannot simply rely on “discipline” to avoid liability for psychological injury. The Commission must look at whether the disciplinary action was reasonable, including the way the process was carried out.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPICPD/2022/21.html

2. State of NSW (Western NSW Local Health District) v Knight [2023] NSWPICPD 63

Ms Knight was working from home during the COVID-19 period with her employer’s knowledge and approval. While working from home, she suffered physical injuries and later required treatment for PTSD after a dog-related incident near her home.

At first instance, the Personal Injury Commission found that the injuries arose in the course of employment and that her employment was a substantial contributing factor. She was awarded weekly compensation and medical expenses.

The employer appealed. It argued that the injury did not happen in the course of employment, that employment was not a substantial contributing factor, and that the Member had failed to properly consider non-work-related factors.

The appeal was dismissed. The Presidential Member confirmed the original Certificate of Determination, meaning Ms Knight kept her entitlement to weekly compensation and medical expenses under section 60.

The exact total dollar amount was not stated in the appeal summary, but the confirmed award included weekly compensation and medical/treatment expenses.

Key principle: An injury suffered while working from home can still be work-related if the work situation materially contributed to the risk or circumstances of the injury.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPICPD/2023/63.html

Negligence cases

Zioukin v Bellissimo t/as Bellissimo Lawyers and Studio Legale [2026] NSWDC 54

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to include a personal injury claim in earlier proceedings against NSW Police. The Court found the omission was a deliberate forensic decision made on the plaintiff’s own instructions due to limitation and costs issues. The claim was dismissed and costs were awarded against the plaintiff.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr R Hanrahan
  • Defendant: Mr C Wood SC

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Rocco Michael Ardino
  • Defendant: Gilchrist Connell

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d081f1b1ecabde9f199268

Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d2ce763539b2175fcaebee Wyatts Lawyers https://www.google.com/search?q=Wyatts+Lawyers&rlz=1C1ALOY_esCO969CO969&oq=Wyatts+Lawyers&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTISCAEQLhgTGK8BGMcBGIAEGI4FMgkIAhAAGBMYgAQyCggDEAAYExgWGB4yCggEEAAYExgWGB4yCggFEAAYExgWGB4yCggGEAAYExgWGB4yCggHEAAYExgWGB4yCggIEAAYExgWGB4yCggJEAAYExgWGB7SAQc1MjBqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x6b12ae3dc184a955:0xfe033d821d4e550c,1,,,,

Victorian Xray Group (Dandenong) Pty Ltd v Anthony Mark Malouf t/as Malouf Solicitors [2026] NSWCA 5

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19c30b738ddcd8944883cf67

Jane Button & Associates Pty Ltd https://www.google.com/search?q=Jane+Button+%26+Associates+Pty+Ltd+&sca_esv=0cad45d7b2a0e479&rlz=1C1ALOY_esCO969CO969&sxsrf=ANbL-n5Blz2xRkY3pkRAcG_OgKY-AIaSow%3A1779671246710&ei=zqATaoeMK62PseMP7unnuAE&biw=1280&bih=551&ved=0ahUKEwiHq-iDoNOUAxWtR2wGHe70GRcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Jane+Button+%26+Associates+Pty+Ltd+&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIUphbmUgQnV0dG9uICYgQXNzb2NpYXRlcyBQdHkgTHRkIDIGEAAYFhgeMgUQABjvBTIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FSIjMDVAAWJPKDXABeACQAQCYAdoBoAGcA6oBBTAuMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoALCA8ICBBAjGCeYAwCSBwUxLjEuMaAH-AayBwUwLjEuMbgHuwPCBwUyLTIuMcgHG4AIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#lrd=0x6b12ae3ff33bac73:0xc4bd34c77c36092c,1,,,,

Mahroei v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2025]

The plaintiff sought judicial review of a PIC Review Panel decision concerning psychological injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Court held the Panel properly considered inconsistencies in the medical evidence and credibility issues, ultimately finding the plaintiff did not satisfy the criteria for PTSD. The procedural fairness arguments were also rejected.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Robinson SC, M Eirth
  • First Defendant: C Allan

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Norwest Lawyers
  • First Defendant: Moray & Agnew Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/198ea14c942f73377b18c4e7

Alley v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [2025] NSWSC 1581

The case involved limitation and discoverability issues in a personal injury claim arising from a workplace fall. The plaintiff argued he was unaware of his common law rights because his solicitor failed to advise him properly about a potential negligence claim. The Court refused to separately determine the limitation issue before trial, holding the matter required broader factual consideration.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Goodridge
  • First Defendant: B Jones

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Firths
  • First Defendant: Sparke Helmore

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19b338117571fdea286d50bd

Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1314

The plaintiff succeeded in a workplace personal injury claim after being injured by a forklift at an abattoir. The remaining dispute concerned the calculation of damages, particularly past economic loss and future treatment expenses. The Court awarded a reduced economic loss “buffer” due to the plaintiff’s intermittent employment history and uncertain future earning capacity.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: A D Campbell
  • First Defendant: M Campbell
  • Second Defendant: O J Dinkha

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Gerard Malouf & Partners
  • First Defendant: Wootton + Kearney
  • Second Defendant: Turks Legal

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19a56ae954fb97b1d513de2c

Mavrakis t/as Mavrakis & Associates Lawyers v Malouf [2025] NSWDC 511

This case concerned a dispute between a solicitor and former client over legal costs arising from a personal injury claim involving a severely injured child. The Court considered whether costs-capping provisions under the LPUL applied before judgment and whether alleged disclosure failures rendered the costs agreement void. The appeal against the Costs Review Panel largely succeeded, and the client was ordered to pay the solicitor’s costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: Mr J Rogers
  • Defendant: Ms K Young

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: ICL Lawyers
  • Defendant: S & R Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19aeb850e0c6d893059e1870

Hedair v Shine Lawyers [2025] NSWSC 441

The plaintiff sued former lawyers involved in handling his workplace injury claim, alleging negligent advice, failure to properly investigate evidence, and defective pleadings that caused loss of opportunity to recover proper compensation. The Court found the repeated amended pleadings remained unclear and legally deficient. Leave to amend was refused and proceedings against one law firm were dismissed with costs.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: R Hanrahan
  • Second Defendant: C Coventry

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: M J Woods & Co
  • Second Defendant: Mills Oakley

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/196a9644c48f720a4d2a4864

Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited v Uin; Gerard Malouf & Partners Pty Limited v Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC

This case concerned a dispute between two law firms and their former client over entitlement to legal fees from the settlement of a personal injury claim. The client challenged the fees as excessive after a substantial settlement left only a limited amount potentially payable to her after deductions. The Court ordered the disputed settlement monies to be paid into Court pending formal costs assessment of both firms’ bills.

Representation

• Counsel
  • K Boettcher (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • J Malouf (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • T Elhassadi (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

• Solicitors
  • Gerard Malouf and Partners Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/173889)
  • Brydens Lawyers Pty Limited (Plaintiff, 2023/180783; First Defendant, 2023/173889)
  • McCulloch & Buggy Pty Limited (Second Defendant, 2023/180783; Third Defendant, 2023/173889)

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18dbfb40a18d3ac1e5031617

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654

The plaintiff, himself a lawyer, sued a law firm alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in the handling of his employment-related claim. The Court considered whether the pleadings adequately identified the alleged breaches, risks of harm, and claimed psychiatric injuries. Leave was granted to amend the statement of claim, although parts relating to anxiety and certain statutory allegations were struck out.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: J Polese
  • Defendant: AJ Macauley

• Solicitors
  • Defendant: K & L Gates

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

The Court of Appeal granted leave for the plaintiff to commence motor accident proceedings out of time after finding she had provided a “full and satisfactory explanation” for the delay. The plaintiff gave unchallenged evidence that she relied on her solicitors and was unaware of the relevant limitation periods. The Court held it was unnecessary for every former solicitor involved to provide evidence explaining the delay.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: B Kelleher SC, B Jones
  • Respondent: J Turnbull SC, J Sleight

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Stacks Goudkamp
  • Respondent: Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184085e8e67e8e49662f0503

Todorovska v Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 47

The Court of Appeal found that Brydens Lawyers failed to adequately inform their client that signing the costs agreement would remove statutory protections limiting legal fees in personal injury claims. The client recovered only a modest amount in damages while substantial legal costs were deducted. The Court held the disclosures were confusing and insufficient, restoring the statutory costs cap and ordering repayment to the client.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant: Mr B Walker SC, Mr D Baran
  • Respondent: Ms M Castle, Mr A Bailey

• Solicitors
  • Applicant: Firths – The Compensation Lawyers
  • Respondent: Brydens Lawyers Pty Ltd

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17fcdb0da7720627bbf198c8

Osei v P K Simpson & Co. Pty Limited and Carney [2021] NSWDC 74 / Osei v P K Simpson Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 13

The 2021 NSWDC proceedings concerned allegations that legal practitioners negligently advised the plaintiff to settle litigation, focusing on whether the defendants breached the standard of care expected of solicitors and counsel in advising on settlement strategy. A related costs decision considered statutory costs caps, indemnity costs orders, Calderbank offers, Sanderson orders, and offers of compromise. On appeal in 2022, the Court found breaches of duty in the legal advice provided, including failures to properly advise and communicate in the plaintiff’s first language, and held that the professional negligence claim was not a claim “for personal injury damages” under the LPUL Act.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Applicant/Appellant: V Bedrossian SC with H Stitt
  • Respondents: J Steele SC

• Solicitors
  • Appellant: Wilson Fox Lawyers Pty Ltd
  • First Respondent: Collin Biggers & Paisley
  • Second Respondent: Clyde & Co

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17ee6141ee69cdef4a1244c4

XY v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 1263

The Law Society suspended a solicitor’s practising certificate after allegations that she altered documents connected with personal injury claims and used false claims assessment certificates to obtain financial advantage. The solicitor sought a stay of the suspension pending criminal and disciplinary proceedings. The Court refused the stay, finding that allowing her to continue practising posed a risk to the public and the reputation of the legal profession.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: M Windsor SC
  • Defendant: C Webster SC, A Poukchanski

• Solicitors
  • Plaintiff: Bartier Perry Lawyers
  • Defendant: The Law Society of New South Wales

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17c52768d7c8e60963add2fa

Time limit problem

1. Magarey v Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service (Nambour Hospital) [2022] QCA 189 (30 September 2022)

Ms Magarey suffered a right ankle injury in 2013. She later underwent surgery in 2015 at the defendant hospital. She alleged the surgery was unnecessary and negligent, leading to serious complications and ultimately an amputation in 2018.

She relied on obtaining a medical expert report much later as the “new material fact” justifying extension of time. She had instructed solicitors, but there were significant delays in obtaining medical expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the trial judge’s decision refusing the extension of time.

Key principle: Even where a plaintiff is relying on solicitors, they must still show they took active and reasonable steps to progress their claim. Delays in obtaining expert evidence will not usually justify extending limitation periods unless properly explained and supported.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QCA/2022/189.html?context=1;query=Magarey%20v%20Sunshine%20Coast%20Hospital%20and%20Health%20Service%20;mask_path=