Archive for category: Legal News

You are here: / / Legal News

Important Changes to Permanent Impairment Assessments from 1 July 2026

/in /by

Injured workers must now obtain legal advice before a permanent impairment assessment

Significant changes to the NSW workers compensation scheme commenced on 1 July 2026 which may have a major impact on injured workers and their future entitlements.

Under the new legislation, an injured worker must obtain independent legal advice before attending a permanent impairment assessment. Legal advice is also required before a worker enters into a Permanent Impairment Agreement with their employer or insurer.

This is an important change.

Why is legal advice so important?

Under the new scheme, a worker will generally have one principal permanent impairment assessment for their injury. The outcome can be used to determine a range of important entitlements, including:

  • weekly compensation payments;
  • medical and related treatment expenses;
  • lump sum compensation for permanent impairment;
  • access to a commutation; and
  • a future Work Injury Damages claim.

This means that a permanent impairment assessment is no longer simply about determining a percentage of impairment for the purpose of a lump sum payment. The assessment can have much broader consequences for a worker’s rights and entitlements.

The legislation recognises the importance of this by requiring workers to receive independent legal advice about the full legal implications of the assessment before they are examined by the permanent impairment assessor. The advice must also address whether the worker should obtain independent financial advice.

What about assessments before 1 July 2026?

The new legal advice requirement did not apply to permanent impairment assessments conducted before 1 July 2026.

Assessments or agreements made before 1 July 2026 may be treated as a worker’s pre-reform impairment assessment under the new scheme, even though the worker was not required to obtain legal advice before that assessment.

Don’t attend your assessment without first obtaining advice

If you have been told that you are being sent for a permanent impairment assessment, or your insurer has asked you to enter into an agreement about your permanent impairment, contact us before attending the assessment or signing anything.

Our role is to explain what the assessment may mean for your claim, your ongoing workers compensation entitlements and any potential Work Injury Damages claim, so that you understand the consequences before the assessment takes place.

If you have an existing workers compensation claim, or you have recently been injured at work, now is the time to obtain advice.

Contact us.

The new workers compensation laws are complex, and the consequences of a permanent impairment assessment can be significant.

Contact our office before attending your permanent impairment assessment or entering into a Permanent Impairment Agreement. We can provide you with the independent legal advice required under the new legislation and help you understand your rights and options.

Don’t let an important assessment determine your future entitlements before you understand what it means. Contact us today.

Pre-Existing Conditions and Whole Person Impairment: Key Lessons from Walton v State of New South Wales

/in /by

Don Cameron & Associates assists injured workers who are facing disputes about whole person impairment assessments. Often a person will injure themself in the workplace and a confronted by an argument from the insurer and their employer that part of their impairment is due to a pre-existing condition. Often an insurer’s medical assessor or a Medical Assessor or a Medical Appeal Panel appointed by the Personal Injury Commission will reduce an impairment rating by applying a deduction for a pre-existing condition.

In the recent Supreme Court case of Walton v State of New South Wales, the worker, an enrolled nurse, slipped on a hospital floor, injured her knee and twisted her back, and later underwent a whole person impairment assessment for ongoing thoracic spine pain, knee injury and scarring. Although the original assessor assessed her at 15% whole person impairment, the Personal Injury Commission Appeal Panel reduced that figure to 14% after applying a 10% deduction for alleged pre-existing degeneration in the thoracic spine.

The NSW Supreme Court held that the Personal Injury Commission Appeal Panel had not properly applied the legal test under s323 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), confirming that a pre-existing condition cannot justify a deduction unless it is shown to have made the worker’s impairment greater than it otherwise would have been.

For injured workers, the case shows how even a small change in impairment can have major consequences for entitlements, and that it is vitally important to obtain experienced legal advice where a whole person impairment assessment is in dispute.

The team of experienced and expert work injury lawyers at Don Cameron & Associates can assist you in your whole person impairment dispute.

NSW Workers Compensation Changes: What Injured Workers Need to Know from 1 July 2026

/in /by

From 1 July 2026, significant changes to the NSW workers compensation system—particularly for psychological injury claims—are affecting how and when injured workers can access benefits and resolve disputes.

Claims are now more structured, with stricter requirements around how injuries are assessed, when disputes arise, and eligibility for ongoing compensation. In particular, psychological injury claims must meet defined criteria and higher impairment thresholds, making early strategy and evidence critical.

These changes mean that getting the right advice at the right time has never been more important.

Our team regularly assists injured workers to:

  • assess whether a claim meets the new legal thresholds
  • identify and gather the evidence needed to support entitlements
  • navigate disputes with insurers
  • progress matters through the Commissions where required

We focus on providing clear, practical advice to help you understand your position and move your claim forward with confidence.

If you are unsure where you stand or have encountered difficulties with your claim, we can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.

A Win for Child Injury Claimants

/in /by

Case Summary: Court of Appeal Victory in Leisure Centre Injury Case
Randwick City Council v Wunderwald

A recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision has reinforced important protections for injured children and strengthened the legal position of plaintiffs in occupier liability cases.

Six-year-old Lily Wunderwald suffered a serious head injury when a tall, unstable café table toppled onto her at the Des Renford Leisure Centre in Maroubra on 31 January 2020. The table—approximately her height—collapsed when she held its edge, causing a laceration to her forehead that cut to the bone. She required hospitalization and will bear a permanent scar.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding of negligence and awarded Lily $125,300 in damages. While the Court reduced the award by removing a speculative component, it decisively rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed core principles favourable to injured plaintiffs.

The Court firmly rejected the Council’s argument that an accident-free history means no risk exists. The judges held that even without prior incidents, a facility operator is liable if:

  • An item is inherently unstable (requiring only “very modest force” to topple)
  • Many children will foreseeably interact with it
  • Serious injury is a potential consequence

This is significant because it means Defendants cannot hide behind and argument that “this has never happened before.” Courts will assess actual risk based on the item’s characteristics and the environment.

The Council through its insurer tried to argue that the burden of precautions should account for all café furniture risks—low tables, stools, children climbing and falling. The Court rejected this tactical move, holding that “similar risks” under the Civil Liability Act must share the same essential character.
This means Defendants cannot avoid liability by redefining the problem. If dangerous furniture caused injury, they can’t escape responsibility by pointing to other, unrelated hazards in the space.

The Court confirmed that when a dangerous item exists in a child-frequented space, a reasonable operator must either secure it permanently to the floor, or remove it entirely setting a clear standard for facility operators.

Lily received $112,500 for non-economic loss (pain, suffering, permanent scarring) and $12,800 for future out-of-pocket expenses (psychological therapy and scar revision surgery). The Court did reduce the award by $50,000 that the trial judge had awarded as a “buffer” for potential future economic loss. However, this reflects a technical requirement under s 13 of the Civil Liability Act—not a weakness in the plaintiff’s case. The Court emphasized that future economic loss awards must be based on solid evidentiary foundations, not speculation. This actually protects plaintiffs by ensuring awards are sustainable and not vulnerable to challenge.

This decision reinforces that:

✓ Facility operators have clear duties to identify and eliminate hazards that could injure children

✓ Absence of prior incidents is not a defense when an item is inherently unstable

✓ Children’s natural curiosity is foreseeable—operators must account for it

✓ Serious injuries from falling furniture are preventable—and liability follows when prevention measures aren’t taken

This case provides strong precedent for other injury claims involving:

  • Unstable furniture in public spaces
  • Child injuries at leisure facilities, cafés, and entertainment venues
  • Premises liability where the hazard is easily identifiable and preventable

If you or a family member has been injured due to unsafe premises or equipment, this case demonstrates that courts will hold operators accountable. Contact us to discuss your claim.

High Court Decision: Diocese Liable for Child Sexual Abuse

/in /by

In a landmark decision, Australia’s High Court has ruled that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle is legally responsible for the sexual abuse of a child by a priest, even though the priest himself committed the abuse.

The case involved a boy (referred to as “AA”) who was sexually assaulted multiple times in 1969 by Fr Ronald Pickin when AA was just 13 years old. Fr Pickin was a parish priest who taught scripture at AA’s school and invited boys to the presbytery on Friday nights, where the abuse occurred.

The High Court established that the Diocese owed what’s called a “non-delegable duty of care” to protect children in the care of its priests. This is a crucial principle because it means that the Diocese cannot escape responsibility by saying “the priest did it, not us.” Organizations have a direct responsibility to ensure children are safe, and they cannot simply hand over that responsibility to someone else—even their own employees.

The Court found that the Diocese:

  • Placed Fr Pickin in a position of authority over children
  • Created situations where he could build relationships with vulnerable children as part of his priestly role
  • Knew children are particularly vulnerable to harm
  • Had the power to supervise and control Fr Pickin’s conduct
  • Should have foreseen the risk of abuse

This decision overturns previous Court rulings that had prevented survivors from holding organisations accountable when abuse involved intentional criminal acts. The High Court made clear that organisations cannot hide behind the excuse that a crime was “intentional” to avoid their duty to protect children.

If you are a survivor of historical sexual abuse by a priest or religious figure, or by a school teacher or other person charged with the responsibility to care for you, this decision strengthens your legal position. Organisations have a responsibility to protect you, and they may be held accountable even many decades later.

If you have experienced sexual abuse within a religious institution or education place, you don’t have to suffer in silence. Our experienced legal team lead by Sythany McKay has deep knowledge of these cases and understands the profound harm caused by abuse. We can help you understand your rights and explore your legal options.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation. We’re here to listen, support, and fight for the justice and compensation you deserve.

Insurance Company Denied ….I think they are Acting Unfairly but Where Do I get Help? 

/in , /by

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) was established to provide a quick and accessible dispute resolution process when an insurance company denies a claim. This article focuses not on workers compensation or motor vehicle third-party (Greenslip) insurance, but on income protection and total and permanent disability (TPD) cover—often arranged through a superannuation trustee.

A recent AFCA decision illustrates how the tribunal can protect consumers from arbitrary claim denials. Here’s what happened:

Joe (not his real name), a self-employed worker, took out income protection insurance to safeguard against loss of income due to injury. In 2013, an injury ended Joe’s working life, and he lodged a claim under the policy. The insurer accepted the claim and began paying a monthly benefit.

Ten years later, Joe alleged that the insurer had miscalculated his benefit and that he had been underpaid. The insurer acknowledged a miscalculation but claimed they had overpaid Joe and intended to reduce future payments to recover the excess.

The dispute was referred to AFCA, which found:

  • The insurer acted unfairly by attempting to reduce payments a decade after the original claim, especially given that Joe could not reasonably be expected to retain business records for that long.
  • Likewise, Joe could not pursue a recalculation after such a long delay for the same evidentiary reasons.
  • The insurer was ordered to reinstate the original monthly payments and pay Joe $2,500 for the distress caused by the threat to reduce his benefit.

This decision highlights AFCA’s commitment to fairness and justice. While AFCA cannot make decisions outside the terms of a policy, it ensures those terms are applied equitably.

AFCA also offers dispute resolution options that may not be available in court, where strict legal principles apply.

We encourage insureds who feel they have been treated unfairly by their insurer to seek advice before accepting the company’s decision. If we recommend an AFCA application, we can assist in preparing persuasive submissions supported by strong evidence and aligned with AFCA’s decision-making principles.

To discuss your situation, contact Emily in our Client Relations Office and request a conference with Lauren Rowland, Partner in charge of Insurance & TPD disputes.

See the full ruling here.

Self-Recusal

/in /by

An interesting article published yesterday in The Guardian by Nino Bucci raises an interesting topic for consideration and we are interested in your thoughts…what do you say on whether or not the judge should have excused himself from the hearing. The High Court of Australia will ultimately decide but what do you think? Read the article on the link below

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/18/australian-judges-should-not-be-able-to-rule-on-self-recusal-review-told

Extract from the article;

“Judges should not be able to rule on applications to recuse themselves as it “demands an impossible level of impartiality”, a leading human rights legal service has told the Australian Law Reform Commission.

The commission is reviewing the laws in relation to judicial impartiality as a result of a case before the high court that involves the conduct of a judge and a barrister who maintained personal contact during a trial. The judge in that case denied an application to recuse himself.

The National Justice Project, a not-for-profit human rights legal service based at Macquarie University and directed by George Newhouse, said in a submission to the commission that the process of self-recusal should be abolished…”

 

Albury Office

1800 627 373 · Suite 5, 491 Smollett Street ALBURY NSW 2640 Google Map »

Wodonga Office

1800 627 373 · Unit 8, 178 High Street WODONGA VIC 3690 Google Map »

Dubbo Office

1800 627 373 · 58 Bultje Street DUBBO NSW 2830 Google Map »

Orange Office

1800 627 373 · 26 William Street, Orange NSW 2800 Google Map »

Byron Bay Office

1800 627 373 · 1/19-21 Centennial Circuit, Byron Bay, NSW 2481 Google Map »

Sydney Office

1800 627 373 · Suite 2A, Level 2, 300 Macquarie Street LIVERPOOL NSW 2170 Google Map »

Also Visiting

Bathurst, Canberra, Melbourne, Newcastle, Noosa, Sydney CBD, Tweed Heads, Wagga Wagga, Wollongong

Please read

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

© Copyright 2026 Cameron Law