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.
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.
Client Alert: Beware of Fake Solicitor Websites
/in Uncategorized /by Darryl ButlerWe 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
Immediate Actions You Should Take
If you encounter a suspicious-looking website or correspondence that appears to be from our firm:
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.
Insurance Company Denied ….I think they are Acting Unfairly but Where Do I get Help?
/in Insurance, Legal News /by Darryl ButlerThe 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:
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.
Did work cause the serious injury or death?
/in Uncategorized /by Darryl Butler“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:
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
Social Media – Defamatory comments on posts – Who is responsible…
/in Uncategorized /by David BryantAn interesting read on ABC News by Elizabeth Byrne, the High Court of Australia is expected to rule on what could be a line in the sand for ‘publishers’ and their responsibilities around defamatory comments posted to online articles. What do you think?
Article extract –
Some of Australia’s biggest media outlets will learn today whether they have won a High Court bid to distance themselves from Facebook comments at the heart of defamation action by former Northern Territory detainee Dylan Voller. The image of the young detainee, shackled to a chair wearing a spit hood, first shown by the ABC’s 4Corners program, captured the nation’s attention.
It sparked a Royal Commission into youth detention in the Northern Territory. It was big news in Australia, but not all of it was welcome, with stories from the media outlets posted on Facebook drawing all kinds of comments from the public. The former detainee, Dylan Voller, is now hoping to sue outlets including The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, the Centralian Advocate and Sky News for publishing defamatory Facebook posts about him.
But his case against them in the NSW Supreme Court has stalled, after questions arose over whether the outlets were considered the publishers of the Facebook comments, which were posted in reply to articles written between July 2016 and June 2017.
It is an important question being considered by the High Court, which may have implications for how media operations manage platforms like Facebook in the future.
Read the full article here – ABC News – Full Article
What do you say?
Self-Recusal
/in Legal News /by David BryantAn 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…”