We wish to draw your attention to a sophisticated and increasing cyber‑threat targeting the legal sector across Australia. According to the Legal Practitioners’ Liability Committee (LPLC), cybercriminals are now creating near‑identical, fraudulent copies of legitimate law firms’ websites, complete with authentic-looking design, branding, staff information, and even secure HTTPS certificates. These clone sites often use domains that differ by only a single character from the real firm (for example, replacing “o” with “0”) to deceive clients and other professionals.

These spoofed sites are frequently used in phishing campaigns. Cybercriminals contact businesses or individuals with whom your firm interacts such as local partners or suppliers, luring them to engage via seemingly legitimate solicitations. Once engaged, those victims may receive malicious attachments or links disguised as PDFs or DocuSign requests. These can install malware, steal credentials, or enable ransomware attacks.

Why This Matters to You

• Scammers impersonating our firm may damage trust and cause confusion.
• Fake websites and phishing can lead to fraud, identity compromise, and client data breaches.
• Any resulting data breach might expose both you and our organisation to regulatory or compliance scrutiny.

Immediate Actions You Should Take

If you encounter a suspicious-looking website or correspondence that appears to be from our firm:

1. Notify us immediately so we can contain and investigate the situation promptly.
2. Verify any unexpected communications—always double-check against our official contact information; do not rely on links from the suspicious domain.

In Summary

Cyber threats continue to evolve, and impersonation scams such as cloned websites pose a real and growing risk. We are taking proactive measures to safeguard our clients, data, and reputation. We ask that you remain vigilant, particularly when receiving requests that appear to come from our firm. If anything appears out of place, please reach out using contact details you already have or those listed in your engagement letter.

Thank you for your trust. Together, we can stay secure and informed.

“An interesting case ..PTSD linked to the death of Police Officer from cancer”.

A recent determination of the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) has found that a former NSW Police Officer’s psychological injury in 2019, caused his death from metastatic gastroesophageal functional carcinoma 3 years later (Culhana v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 257).

It was uncontested that the deceased had been exposed to many traumatic events over the course of his 16-year policing career, causing PTSD. The workers compensation insurer accepted liability for this injury which was deemed to have occurred in November 2019.

When he was forced to leave work the deceased began to drink and smoke heavily to relieve his symptoms of anxiety and PTSD.

By the end of 2020, the deceased was having difficulty swallowing food and experiencing excessive heartburn. He underwent an endoscopy on 4 March 2021 which revealed that he was suffering with Barrett’s oesophagus. Due to worsening physical symptoms, a further endoscopy was performed on 10 June 2021. This revealed ulcerative oesophagitis and adenocarcinoma. He passed away as a result of adenocarcinoma on 27 November 2022.

It was successfully argued by the legal representative for the deceased’s partner, who brought proceedings as a dependent in a claim for death benefits, that the medical evidence supported the deceased’s work-related PTSD diagnosis and symptoms materially contributed to his increased stomach acid secretion, causing Barrett’s oesophagus and subsequently adenocarcinoma. A PIC Member found that the deceased’s death was because of his psychological injury sustained at work on 3 November 2019 and benefits were payable pursuant to Sections 25 & 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

This decision is currently on Appeal by the State of New South Wales.

The takeout from this case is that an injured worker need not prove that a consequential injury/condition (which may or may not lead to death) was caused by the primary injury but that that primary injury materially contributed to that consequential injury/condition. This decision is also one of the first involving the death of a worker from cancer which has been linked to an accepted PTSD injury.

Other successful cases we have argued involving a finding of consequential injury include:

1. A police officer who had been exposed to trauma during his career ultimately took his own life. In this case, the Respondent disputed that the worker suffered any work-related psychological or physical injury which led to him committing suicide. It maintained that no compensation was payable as the mental health illness that led to his suicide had been precipitated by events related to his personal marital issues and not to any work-related injury. It was successfully argued, based on the evidence, that the marriage breakdown was attributable to the worker’s injuries, which had caused him difficulties for several years, and he would not have had such a severe reaction to the breakdown, resulting in his suicide, had it not been for his mental health difficulties. The Member in this case found that the worker suffered injury arising out of the course of his employment and benefits were payable to his dependants.
2. A worker injured both of his knees in the course of his employment. He had an accepted workers compensation claim for these injuries. As a result, he was severely limited in his ability to exercise resulting in excessive weight gain. He was under the care of a Surgeon to consider gastric band surgery (which was also accepted to be related to the bilateral knee injury) when he died as a result of heart failure, chronic sleep apnoea and morbid obesity. It was successfully argued that the worker’s bilateral knee injuries resulted in his ultimate death and benefits were payable to his dependants.

It is important, as an injured worker, or a dependant of a deceased worker that you seek legal advice if that injury or death may have been caused or contributed to by employment.

Sharla Sutcliffe, Partner, Don Cameron & Associates

On September 27^th, 2020, Dede Fredy died when he was hit by a car in Marrickville. Mr Fredy, an Indonesian national, was delivering food for Uber Eats to provide for his wife and four-year-old son in Bali.

Two days later, in the Sydney suburb of Zetland, Xiaojun Chen was hit by a bus whilst riding his motorbike for food delivery company Hungry Panda. He left behind his wife, two children and two disabled in-laws for whom he was the primary breadwinner.

So began a horror two-month period where five people died whilst working for food delivery companies. Bijoy Paul, an engineering student from Bangladesh, died delivering McDonalds. Had he been making the burgers, not delivering them, he would have had access to worker’s compensation. As it was, like all the victims, he was entitled to nothing.

Whilst safety at work and compensation for those injured is something most of us take for granted, protections afforded to those working in the ‘gig economy’ aren’t as comprehensive.

Workers Compensation is a vital mechanism which allows workers time to treat and rehabilitate injuries sustained at work and ensures their families aren’t left scrambling to pay the bills. Under current conditions, most workers in the ‘gig economy’, including food delivery riders with companies such as Uber, Deliveroo and DoorDash, are not afforded these protections. This is due to their status as independent contractors, essentially meaning that they are considered to be operating their own business rather than working as an employee for a company.

Some companies do offer group insurance for their riders; however, the pay-outs are significantly less than what is available for employees under NSW Workers Compensation laws.

There is appetite for change on this front. A NSW Senate Inquiry into the gig economy has fielded submissions from the National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU), with both organisations calling for amendments to how gig workers access personal injury insurance.

The NIBA states that legislation could easily be amended to cover such workers by recognising them as ‘deemed workers’ under the Workers Compensation scheme. Under The Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, certain contractors are granted this classification, allowing them access to the same insurance scheme as employees. It is the opinion of the NIBA that this would be the easiest way to provide certainty to both gig workers and platform providers.

Many people who may otherwise be considered outside the traditional employment relationship are deemed workers under NSW Workers Compensation Law. Jockeys, Harness Racing Drivers and Golf Caddies, all of whom are hired casually on a one-off basis by multiple principals, are deemed workers under NSW legislation. In addition, the legal determination of whether a worker is an employee or a contractor can be a complex legal task. That a worker is called a contractor is no more valid than labelling an orange as an apple. Whatever the label-an orange is still an orange.

In two high profile cases, the Fair Work Commission have already found that despite the claimants being labelled as contractors, the conditions of their work meant that they were employees in the eyes of the law.

In Klooger v Foodora Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6836 and Diego Franco v Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 2818, food delivery riders were found to have been unfairly dismissed on the grounds that they were employees and not contractors and were thus entitled to greater protections. Whilst other cases, such as Gupta v Portier Pacific Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 1698, have found to the contrary, there is more than enough basis for gig workers to contest their mandatory coercion into the world of independent contracting, should their work conditions suggest otherwise.

Workers injured or killed in these jobs, and their dependants, are often from parts of community who do not find it easy to get legal advice-even though such advice is available for free in most Australian jurisdictions. Asking a boss or an insurance company for advice on your rights is often akin to asking the crocodile if it is safe to swim in the lagoon.

Sustaining an injury at work is a serious, often life-changing event. Any worker who sustains an injury at work, regardless of their status, should seek legal advice to ensure their rights are being upheld to the fullest extent of the law. There is no downside to calling us and having a confidential, free conference to ascertain whether a claim for compensation or damages can be made. You have nothing to lose.