For many injured Victorians, a successful claim for compensation does not automatically provide access to common law damages. Whether an injury arises from a transport accident, a workplace incident, or another negligent act, there are often specific legislative “gateways” that must be satisfied before a person can pursue damages for pain and suffering or economic loss.
Understanding which gateway applies, and how the various schemes interact, can be critical to the success of a claim.
The Wrongs Act Gateway
For many public liability, occupiers’ liability and medical negligence claims in Victoria, access to damages for pain and suffering is governed by the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
Unlike the workers compensation and transport accident schemes, the Wrongs Act applies a “significant injury” threshold rather than a “serious injury” threshold.
In most cases, an injured person must establish that they have sustained a significant injury by satisfying the prescribed whole person impairment thresholds, namely:
- 5% or more whole person impairment for a spinal injury;
- More than 5% whole person impairment for other physical injuries; or
- 10% or more whole person impairment for psychiatric injuries.
The assessment is undertaken in accordance with the statutory requirements and can involve complex medical and impairment evidence. Certain injuries are deemed to be significant injuries without the need for impairment assessment.
As a result, a person may establish negligence against another party but still be unable to recover damages for pain and suffering unless they first satisfy the significant injury gateway.
The Workers Compensation Serious Injury Gateway
In workplace injury matters, the relevant gateway is generally found under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).
A worker seeking common law damages against their employer must first obtain a serious injury certificate or satisfy the court that they have sustained a serious injury. Unlike the impairment-based approach often seen under the Wrongs Act, the workers compensation scheme focuses heavily on the consequences of the injury for the individual worker.
A serious injury may be established through:
- A permanent serious impairment or loss of body function;
- A serious psychiatric injury; or
- A narrative test demonstrating very considerable consequences flowing from the injury.
The serious injury process is highly specialised and frequently involves disputes regarding medical evidence, work capacity, employment history and the overall impact of the injury on the worker’s life.
The Transport Accident Serious Injury Gateway
Injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents are primarily governed by the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic).
Like the workers compensation scheme, a transport accident claimant generally requires a serious injury certificate before bringing a common law damages claim.
While there is significant overlap between the serious injury tests in the transport and workers compensation jurisdictions, there are important procedural and evidentiary differences. Claimants must navigate the requirements of the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), comply with statutory timeframes and satisfy the legislative criteria before commencing proceedings.
When Schemes Overlap
One of the most complex areas of Victorian personal injury law arises when an incident could potentially fall within more than one statutory scheme.
Consider the following examples:
- A delivery driver injured in a motor vehicle accident while working.
- A police officer involved in a transport accident during the course of employment.
- A worker injured at work by the negligence of a third party.
- A pedestrian struck by a vehicle on workplace premises.
In these situations, multiple Acts may appear relevant at first glance. However, the legislation often directs claimants towards a particular gateway for common law damages.
For example, while an injured worker may have rights under the workers compensation system and transport accident benefits available through the TAC, the legislation may require the claimant to satisfy the serious injury provisions applicable to the particular cause of action being pursued.
The interaction between the various schemes can affect:
- Which benefits are payable;
- Who can be sued;
- What damages are recoverable;
- Limitation periods;
- Recovery rights between insurers; and
- The gateway that must be satisfied before proceedings can commence.
Why Specialist Advice Matters
Determining the correct pathway is not always straightforward. An injury that appears to fit neatly within one compensation scheme may be affected by another piece of legislation, resulting in unexpected procedural requirements or statutory restrictions.
Mistakenly pursuing the wrong gateway can lead to significant delays, unnecessary costs and, in some cases, the loss of valuable legal rights.
For that reason, individuals involved in workplace accidents, transport accidents or complex negligence matters should seek advice early to ensure the correct legislative framework is identified and the appropriate serious injury or significant injury process is followed.
Key Takeaways
Victoria’s personal injury system contains multiple pathways to common law damages, each with its own thresholds, procedures and evidentiary requirements. While the Wrongs Act, Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and Transport Accident Act all provide avenues for injured people to pursue compensation, the challenge often lies in identifying which gateway applies when circumstances overlap.
In crossover cases, the answer is rarely determined by what appears most convenient. Rather, it depends on the legislative framework and the specific directions provided by the relevant Acts. Obtaining early legal advice can help ensure the correct path is followed from the outset and maximise the prospects of a successful claim.
NSW Workers Compensation Medical Treatment Changes
/in Uncategorized /by Lauren RowlandIf you are receiving workers compensation in NSW, important changes to medical treatment funding started on 1 July 2026.
Some treatments and services—including certain massage, fitness, wellness, complementary and recreational services, and companion-animal expenses—may no longer be covered automatically. A recommendation from a health practitioner may not be enough. You may need a formal prescription or referral that explains why the treatment is necessary for your work injury.
From 1 October 2026, the test for treatment is also scheduled to change from “reasonably necessary” to “reasonable and necessary”. Insurers may look more closely at the medical evidence, expected benefit and whether a less expensive treatment could achieve a similar result.
A refusal by your insurer is not necessarily the end of the matter. Do not stop important treatment or accept a decision without first obtaining advice.
If your treatment has been refused, delayed or questioned, act now:
At Don Cameron & Associates, we can assess whether the insurer has applied the rules correctly and advise you about your options for challenging a refusal. Our expert team has a proven track records of fighting insurers, and winning.
Do not let an insurer’s “no” decide what treatment you receive. Contact Don Cameron & Associates for advice about your workers compensation treatment rights.
This is general information only and is not legal advice. The application of the 2026 changes will depend on the legislation, your injury, your claim and the available medical evidence.
Understanding the Different Gateways to Common Law Damages in Victoria
/in Uncategorized /by Lauren RowlandFor many injured Victorians, a successful claim for compensation does not automatically provide access to common law damages. Whether an injury arises from a transport accident, a workplace incident, or another negligent act, there are often specific legislative “gateways” that must be satisfied before a person can pursue damages for pain and suffering or economic loss.
Understanding which gateway applies, and how the various schemes interact, can be critical to the success of a claim.
The Wrongs Act Gateway
For many public liability, occupiers’ liability and medical negligence claims in Victoria, access to damages for pain and suffering is governed by the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic).
Unlike the workers compensation and transport accident schemes, the Wrongs Act applies a “significant injury” threshold rather than a “serious injury” threshold.
In most cases, an injured person must establish that they have sustained a significant injury by satisfying the prescribed whole person impairment thresholds, namely:
The assessment is undertaken in accordance with the statutory requirements and can involve complex medical and impairment evidence. Certain injuries are deemed to be significant injuries without the need for impairment assessment.
As a result, a person may establish negligence against another party but still be unable to recover damages for pain and suffering unless they first satisfy the significant injury gateway.
The Workers Compensation Serious Injury Gateway
In workplace injury matters, the relevant gateway is generally found under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic).
A worker seeking common law damages against their employer must first obtain a serious injury certificate or satisfy the court that they have sustained a serious injury. Unlike the impairment-based approach often seen under the Wrongs Act, the workers compensation scheme focuses heavily on the consequences of the injury for the individual worker.
A serious injury may be established through:
The serious injury process is highly specialised and frequently involves disputes regarding medical evidence, work capacity, employment history and the overall impact of the injury on the worker’s life.
The Transport Accident Serious Injury Gateway
Injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents are primarily governed by the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic).
Like the workers compensation scheme, a transport accident claimant generally requires a serious injury certificate before bringing a common law damages claim.
While there is significant overlap between the serious injury tests in the transport and workers compensation jurisdictions, there are important procedural and evidentiary differences. Claimants must navigate the requirements of the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), comply with statutory timeframes and satisfy the legislative criteria before commencing proceedings.
When Schemes Overlap
One of the most complex areas of Victorian personal injury law arises when an incident could potentially fall within more than one statutory scheme.
Consider the following examples:
In these situations, multiple Acts may appear relevant at first glance. However, the legislation often directs claimants towards a particular gateway for common law damages.
For example, while an injured worker may have rights under the workers compensation system and transport accident benefits available through the TAC, the legislation may require the claimant to satisfy the serious injury provisions applicable to the particular cause of action being pursued.
The interaction between the various schemes can affect:
Why Specialist Advice Matters
Determining the correct pathway is not always straightforward. An injury that appears to fit neatly within one compensation scheme may be affected by another piece of legislation, resulting in unexpected procedural requirements or statutory restrictions.
Mistakenly pursuing the wrong gateway can lead to significant delays, unnecessary costs and, in some cases, the loss of valuable legal rights.
For that reason, individuals involved in workplace accidents, transport accidents or complex negligence matters should seek advice early to ensure the correct legislative framework is identified and the appropriate serious injury or significant injury process is followed.
Key Takeaways
Victoria’s personal injury system contains multiple pathways to common law damages, each with its own thresholds, procedures and evidentiary requirements. While the Wrongs Act, Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and Transport Accident Act all provide avenues for injured people to pursue compensation, the challenge often lies in identifying which gateway applies when circumstances overlap.
In crossover cases, the answer is rarely determined by what appears most convenient. Rather, it depends on the legislative framework and the specific directions provided by the relevant Acts. Obtaining early legal advice can help ensure the correct path is followed from the outset and maximise the prospects of a successful claim.
No Duty Owed By Government Authority
/in Uncategorized /by Lauren RowlandIn Doyle’s Farm Produce Pty Ltd atf Claredale Family Trust v Murray-Darling Basin Authority 2026 NSWSC 1036, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed a $1.5 billion class action by 28,000 irrigators, holding that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority owed no duty of care to individual water users.
The irrigators alleged that the Authority’s management of the Basin Plan between 2017 and 2019 caused reduced water allocations, lost profits, and higher temporary water prices.
The decision illustrates several core principles about negligence liability for public authorities.
Where a body is empowered to act in the “public interest” across competing groups, Courts are reluctant to impose a duty of care to particular individuals. Such a duty risks distorting the authority’s neutral, system‑wide role
Claims for pure economic loss require a close and direct relationship, known in the law as proximity between the defendant and plaintiff. Here, the Authority did not control individual water allocations and this diluted any finding of proximity to specific irrigators
Imposing a duty to one class of users for example irrigators, may create conflicting obligations to other stakeholders including the environment, other regions, and downstream users. Courts treat such complicated policy-laden decisions as unsuitable for negligence liability.
The Court found that even if a duty were assumed, there was no breach of that duty by the Authority in its use of climate information, planning, or delegation arrangements.
This case reinforces that Government authorities making broad, multi‑factorial resource‑management decisions are generally not liable in negligence to individuals for economic losses arising from those decisions, absent a clear, direct relationship and statutory basis for a duty.
WorkCover Claim Denied? We Can Help You Challenge the Decision
/in Uncategorized /by Lauren RowlandHas your Victorian WorkCover claim been rejected?
Being told that your WorkCover claim has been denied can be overwhelming — particularly when you are already dealing with an injury, medical treatment and uncertainty about your ability to work.
A WorkCover denial is not necessarily the end of your claim.
At Don Cameron & Associates, we assist injured workers across Victoria to understand their rights and challenge WorkCover decisions.
If you have received a decision from your WorkCover insurer that you believe is wrong, it is important to act quickly.
What WorkCover decisions can you challenge?
You may be able to challenge a range of decisions through the Workplace Injury Commission (WIC), including:
Our lawyers can review the decision and explain what it means for you and what options may be available.
Don’t miss the 60-day deadline
If your WorkCover insurer has made a decision that you want to challenge, you generally have 60 days to refer the dispute to the Workplace Injury Commission for conciliation.
There may be circumstances where an extension of time is available, but you should not rely on this.
The sooner you obtain advice, the better.
If you have received a WorkCover denial or other adverse decision, contact Don Cameron & Associates as soon as possible.
We can help you prepare for conciliation
The Workplace Injury Commission conciliation process is designed to provide injured workers with an opportunity to resolve disputes with their WorkCover insurer without proceeding immediately to litigation.
A conciliator will consider the issues in dispute and assist the parties to explore whether the matter can be resolved.
Our role is to help you put yourself in the strongest possible position before conciliation.
Our assistance may include:
Reviewing your claim: We will review the available medical evidence, WorkCover correspondence and other documents relevant to your claim.
Assessing your prospects: We can identify the strengths and weaknesses of your claim and advise you about what additional evidence may be required.
Developing a strategy: We can help develop a negotiation strategy directed towards achieving the best possible outcome in your circumstances.
Negotiating with the insurer: Where appropriate, we can correspond and negotiate with your employer and/or WorkCover insurer in an attempt to resolve the dispute before the conciliation conference.
Working with the conciliator: We can liaise with the conciliator, where appropriate, before the conciliation conference to assist in progressing the dispute.
Can our lawyers attend the conciliation?
Lawyers are generally not permitted to represent workers at the conciliation conference itself.
However, you do not have to face the process without support.
Where appropriate, we can assist you to arrange representation through WorkCover Assist or Union Assist, which may be available to represent you at the conciliation conference at no cost.
We can continue to provide you with legal advice and assistance in preparing for the conciliation.
What if the dispute isn’t resolved?
Not every dispute can be resolved at conciliation.
If your matter does not resolve, we can advise you about the options available to you, including the potential prospects, risks and costs associated with taking the dispute further.
Every WorkCover claim is different. The appropriate next step will depend on the nature of your injury, the insurer’s decision, the medical evidence and the circumstances of your claim.
Don’t accept a WorkCover denial without getting advice
If you believe your WorkCover claim has been wrongly denied, you may have options.
Our experienced workers’ compensation lawyers can help you understand the decision, identify the issues in dispute and determine the appropriate way forward.
Received a WorkCover denial?
Don’t wait until the deadline is approaching.
Contact Don Cameron & Associates today to discuss your WorkCover claim and find out how we may be able to assist.
This information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. Time limits and available avenues of review may vary depending on the circumstances of your claim. You should obtain advice about your individual circumstances as soon as possible.
Important Changes to Permanent Impairment Assessments from 1 July 2026
/in Legal News /by Lauren RowlandInjured 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:
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 Legal News /by Darryl ButlerDon 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 Legal News /by Darryl ButlerFrom 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:
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 Legal News /by Darryl ButlerCase 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:
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:
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 Legal News /by Darryl ButlerIn 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:
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.
News Flash – Don Cameron & Associates merges with Toby Tancred Solicitor and acquires new office in Orange NSW
/in Uncategorized /by Darryl ButlerDear Friends and Colleagues
We are happy to announce that from 1 October 2025 we will be merging Toby Tancred Solicitor with Don Cameron & Associates. Toby has been practicing in Orange for 20 years. He has been able assist many local people negotiate difficult times in their lives caused by personal injury or death of loved ones.
The office will remain at 26 William Street, and Toby will be here to look after existing clients and any future clients who wish to entrust their legal matter to our care. The only difference will be that Toby will now be part of Don Cameron & Associates, a respected regional law firm that has a culture of personal care by experienced experts. Don Cameron & Associates is a specialist personal injury legal practice, accepting instructions from clients who are injured at work, in a motor accident, or as a result of the negligence of a third party. Toby will be looking to continue to accept work injury claims and focus particularly on medical negligence.
Don Cameron & Associates has offices in Albury, Dubbo, Sydney and Byron Bay. The firm has 12 lawyers, 3 of whom are Accredited Specialists in Personal Injury Law and practicing in a regional office. The addition of Toby’s firm in Orange and a further Accredited Personal Injury Specialist will, we believe, further enhance the range and quality of services we provide. Best of all this will be the Firm’s 4th regional office. We believe in bringing quality legal services to the regions where a client can speak their lawyer in person, face to face. We don’t advertise offices where there are no lawyers in attendance, common practice among many of the city firms. All our new clients’ matters are vetted by a respected specialist in their field and handled by trained staff who care about our clients.
We are very happy to be merging and believe this will enhance our offering in Orange and the Central West.