Court cases for personal injury and negligence

PIC decisions - Money awarded

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.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC/2024/457.html?context=1;query=Keefe%20%20;mask_path=au/cases/nsw/NSWPIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Negligence admitted

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

his High Court case involved a personal injury claim followed by a professional negligence claim against lawyers (solicitor and barrister).

Mr Kendirjian was injured in a motor vehicle accident sued the other driver in the NSW District Court for damages. Liability was admitted, so the only issue was how much damages he would receive.

During the trial the defendant made a settlement offer of $600,000 + costs. His lawyers allegedly advised him to reject the offer as “too low”. The case proceeded to judgment and he ultimately received about $308,432.75 + costs. He later sued his lawyers.

Lower courts said: immunity applied → claim struck out.

The High Court: rejected the broad application of advocates’ immunity; allowed the negligence claim to proceed.

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

Kendirjian v Lepore [2017] HCA 13

Mr David Kendirjian was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the other driver for damages. On the first day of the damages trial, the defendant offered $600,000 plus costs to settle the claim. Mr Kendirjian later alleged that his solicitor and barrister negligently failed to properly advise him about the offer and rejected it as "too low" without obtaining his informed instructions. The trial continued and he ultimately recovered only $308,432.75 plus costs.

Mr Kendirjian then sued his lawyers for professional negligence, claiming that if he had been properly advised, he would have accepted the settlement offer.

The High Court held that advocates' immunity does not protect lawyers from claims arising from negligent advice to reject a settlement offer, even where the case subsequently proceeds to judgment.

Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2017/hca-13-2017-03-29.pdf , https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/2017/HCA/13.pdf

Nikolaou v Papasavas, Phillips & Co [1989] HCA 11

This is a leading High Court case about solicitor negligence where a client loses a personal injury claim due to the solicitor’s failure, and it focuses heavily on how damages must be assessed in “loss of a chance” litigation claims.

Mr Nikolaou was injured in a motor vehicle accident (caused by an unidentified driver). His solicitors: failed to properly advise him about his right to bring a personal injury claim, and allowed the claim to become statute-barred (out of time). As a result, he lost the opportunity to sue for damages for his injuries.

He then sued his solicitors for professional negligence, claiming compensation for the value of the lost personal injury claim.

The High Court accepted that the solicitors were negligent and that he was entitled to damages. The High Court did not simply confirm the original award. Instead, it corrected the legal method for calculating damages and required damages to be reassessed properly.

Case link: https://jade.io/summary/mnc/1989/HCA/11

Johnson v Perez [1988] HCA 64

Mr Johnson had earlier suffered personal injuries in accidents and instructed solicitors to pursue compensation claims. However, due to the solicitors’ negligence, the claims were not properly prosecuted and were struck out/dismissed for want of prosecution.

There is no single fixed High Court “lump sum award” stated as the headline figure like in normal injury cases. Instead, the Court was dealing with principle of assessment of damages, and the actual amounts had been assessed by the trial judge in the negligence proceedings. The High Court did not itself calculate a new compensation figure, but confirmed how damages should be assessed.

Case link: https://jade.io/summary/mnc/1988/HCA/64

Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers Pty Ltd [2016] HCA 16

Mr Attwells sued his lawyers after receiving advice to settle litigation on terms that were allegedly worse than the outcome he may have obtained if the matter had continued. The clients argued they received negligent settlement advice.

The lawyers argued that advocates’ immunity protected them.

The High Court held that advocates’ immunity did not apply. The Court found that immunity only applies where there is a:

“functional connection”

between the lawyer’s work and a judicial determination. The settlement advice did not itself contribute to a judicial decision by the Court. Because the matter resolved by agreement between the parties rather than judicial determination, the negligence claim could proceed.

Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s30-2015

Money awarded

1. Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 547; Consolidated Lawyers Ltd v Abu-Mahmoud [2016] NSWCA 4

Mr Abu-Mahmoud sued his lawyers for negligent advice about a corporate restructure and tax minimisation plan. The Court found that the advice caused significant financial loss.

Amount awarded: $2,335,593.18, plus legal costs.

Key principle: Solicitors can be liable where negligent commercial advice causes financial loss.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2016/4.html

2. S&P Gomes Pty Ltd ta Cohuna Hotel Motel v Sundar ta Sun Legal [2025] NSWSC 24

The plaintiff sued its solicitor over negligent advice during the purchase of a hotel/motel business. The Court found that proper advice would have prevented the plaintiff from entering the transaction.

Amount awarded: $1,216,615.17.

Key principle: Solicitors can be liable for negligent conveyancing or transaction advice.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2025/24.html

3. DJZ Constructions Pty Ltd v Paul Pritchard trading as Pritchard Law Group and Ors [2010] NSWSC 1024; [2010] NSWSC 1472

DJZ Constructions sued its former solicitor for negligent drafting and advice in commercial deeds and agreements. The Court found negligence in part and awarded damages plus interest.

Amount awarded: $728,857.39 total.

Key principle: Negligent drafting or commercial advice by a solicitor can lead to liability.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2010/1472.html

4. Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68

Mr Lofts sued Lawcover over negligent estate planning advice given by a solicitor. The Court found that the failure to explain joint tenancy and severance caused loss to an intended beneficiary.

Amount awarded: $510,000.

Key principle: Solicitors may owe duties to intended beneficiaries in estate planning matters.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2026/68.html caselaw, represented by Wyatts Lawyers

5. Firth v Liaris [2002] NSWCA 306

The plaintiff sued after not being properly advised about available common law rights. The Court accepted that the failure to advise caused loss and resulted in a monetary judgment.

Amount awarded: $64,000.

Key principle: Failure to advise a client about legal rights can amount to professional negligence.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/306.html

6. Osei v P K Simpson Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 13

Mr Osei sued his former lawyers for negligent advice about settling a workers compensation claim. The Court treated the loss as economic loss caused by negligent professional advice.

Amount awarded: $19,086.65, including interest.

Key principle: Negligent settlement advice can create liability for economic loss.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2022/13.html

7. Vukancic v Velcic [2007] NSWSC 1001

Mr Vukancic suffered a serious back injury while working in construction in 1996. He retained solicitors (Velcic & Associates) to pursue workers compensation. He later accepted a workers compensation lump sum settlement of $37,500, which extinguished his right to bring a common law damages claim against his employer. He alleged that his solicitors failed to properly advise him. He later retained another firm of solicitors (Bell/Martin Bell & Associates) to sue the first solicitors, but that firm allowed the professional negligence claim to become statute-barred. He then sued the second solicitors for their negligence.

Amount awarded: $84,944.

Key principle: the case is frequently cited for the loss of a chance in professional negligence principle.

Case link: https://casenote.au/cases/vukancic-v-velcic

8. Sutton v Firth (No 2) [2009] NSWDC 53

This case is a professional negligence claim against solicitors arising from a personal injury/workers compensation situation.

Ms Sutton (plaintiff) was injured at work and had two possible paths: 1. accept workers compensation benefits (including lump sums), or 2. pursue a common law negligence claim against her employer (which could potentially have been more valuable)

Her solicitors allegedly: failed to properly advise her about the value of pursuing the common law claim, and as a result, she lost the opportunity to sue at common law before limitation periods expired / election consequences applied.

Amount awarded: $81,896.38. This represented the assessed value of the lost chance of obtaining a better common law damages outcome, after deductions.

Key legal principles: this case is mainly used for professional negligence + loss of chance in litigation advice, especially in the workers compensation context.

Case link: https://benchmarkinc.com.au/benchmark/composite/benchmark_08-04-2009_insurance_banking_construction.pdf

Advocate immunity problem

In Australia Advocates' immunity is a legal doctrine that protects solicitors and barristers from being sued for negligence in their conduct of court proceedings and closely related preparatory work. This immunity is designed to ensure that legal practitioners can perform their duties without the fear of personal liability, thus promoting the efficient administration of justice. Limitations of Advocates' Immunity

While advocates' immunity provides a shield against negligence claims, it does not extend to cases involving professional misconduct. Specifically, the immunity does not apply in situations where a solicitor engages in deliberate dishonesty or other forms of misconduct. This means that if a solicitor acts unethically or dishonestly, they can be held liable for their actions. Key Points

• Negligence Claims: Advocates' immunity protects solicitors from negligence claims related to their court conduct.
• Professional Misconduct: The immunity does not cover cases of professional misconduct, including deliberate dishonesty.
• Public Policy: The rationale behind this limitation is to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and ensure accountability for unethical behavior.

In summary, while advocates' immunity offers significant protection for solicitors in Australia, it does not shield them from liability in cases of professional misconduct or dishonesty.

1. Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543

This is the foundational Australian case that established advocates’ immunity.

Mr Giannarelli sued his barristers alleging negligence in the way they conducted his criminal defence. The High Court held that barristers could not be sued for negligence for work done in court or work closely connected to court advocacy.

The Court considered that lawyers needed protection so litigation could be conducted properly without fear of later lawsuits.

Key principle: Advocates’ immunity exists for in-court work and closely connected out-of-court work.

Link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgments/1988/052-Giannarelli-v-Wraith.pdf

2. D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12

Mr D'Orta-Ekenaike sued his lawyers after receiving legal advice that allegedly led him to plead guilty in criminal proceedings. He later changed his plea, was convicted, successfully appealed, and was eventually acquitted. He claimed his lawyers were negligent and caused him loss of liberty and income.

The High Court held that advocates’ immunity applied. The Court found that the legal advice and work performed by the lawyers were intimately connected with the conduct of the case in court and the judicial process. The Court emphasised the principle of:

“finality of litigation”

meaning completed court cases should not be reopened indirectly by suing lawyers over work closely connected to court proceedings.

Case link: https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-1998-current/dorta-ekenaike-v-victoria-legal-aid

3. Boland v Yates Property Corporation Pty Limited [1999] HCA 64

The case arose from a long-running compensation claim following the compulsory acquisition of valuable land at Darling Harbour owned by Yates Property Corporation. The company had retained solicitors and counsel to conduct the compensation proceedings in the Land and Environment Court.

Yates alleged that the lawyers had negligently conducted the compensation case by failing to properly present and argue aspects of the claim, resulting in a lower compensation award than should have been obtained.

At first instance, the lawyers won. The Full Federal Court later found negligence. The matter then proceeded to the High Court.

The High Court allowed the lawyers' appeals and dismissed Yates' claims.

Case link: https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?LocID=%22JUD%2F167ALR575%2FJM%3AGleeson%22&utm_source=chatgpt.com

4. Goddard Elliott v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87

Mr Paul Fritsch was involved in a complex Family Court property settlement dispute with his former wife. He retained the law firm Goddard Elliott and counsel to represent him. The firm knew that Mr Fritsch suffered from serious mental illness and that the case involved difficult commercial, valuation and taxation issues. Mr Fritsch later alleged that: his lawyers negligently acted on instructions when he lacked the mental capacity to give them; they failed to properly prepare the case for trial; these failures caused him to accept a settlement far more favourable to his former wife than a properly conducted case would have produced.

However, the Court held that the negligence fell within advocates' immunity because it was work intimately connected with the conduct and resolution of litigation.

Case link: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3fe09c9a-c71e-4c02-8537-ff489b554cb4

5. Symonds v Vass [2009] NSWCA 139

This was a professional negligence claim against solicitors arising out of a failed property development dispute (Point Piper development).

The clients alleged that their lawyers: failed to properly conduct or advise them during litigation, mishandled aspects of the case (including preparation and conduct of proceedings), and as a result, they suffered an adverse settlement or judgment outcome that they would otherwise have avoided.

The NSW Court of Appeal essentially held that the plaintiff’s claim against the solicitors could not succeed because it was caught (or closely engaged) by advocates’ immunity principles and causation difficulties.

Case link: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2009/nswca/139

6. Day v Rogers [2011] NSWCA 124

This case involved a professional negligence claim against a barrister/solicitor arising out of earlier litigation in the NSW District Court.

The client (Day) argued that his lawyers: failed to properly prepare and conduct his earlier proceedings, and as a result, his original case was dismissed and he suffered a costs order / loss of his claim.

The NSW Court of Appeal held that the negligence claim against the lawyers could not proceed because it was barred by advocates’ immunity.

Case link: https://www.barristerai.com.au/case/2011/nswca/124

Caller v State of New South Wales (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 468 (14 November 2025)

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2025/468.html?query=%25222005%2520HCA%252012%2522%2520or%2520%2522223%2520CLR%25201%2522%2520or%2520%2522214%2520ALR%252092%2522%2520or%2520%252279%2520ALJR%2520755%2522%2520or%2520%25222005%2520Aust%2520Torts%2520Reports%252081%252d784%2522

Emde v Simpson [2026] NSWDC 27 (16 February 2026)

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2026/27.html?query=%25222005%2520HCA%252012%2522%2520or%2520%2522223%2520CLR%25201%2522%2520or%2520%2522214%2520ALR%252092%2522%2520or%2520%252279%2520ALJR%2520755%2522%2520or%2520%25222005%2520Aust%2520Torts%2520Reports%252081%252d784%2522

Lofts v Lawcover Insurance Pty Limited [2026] NSWDC 68

Interesting win: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19d2ce763539b2175fcaebee

Haydyn Garry Hastwell searching for justice

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

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2019] NSWSC 1224 (22 March 2019)

In this procedural ruling, the Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to tender correspondence from early 2019 to infer a conflict of interest from the Commissioner's refusal to answer questions about Freemasonry. Court held that the material was not relevant because it was not contemporaneous with the 2018 decisions under review and note that a Jones v Dunkel inference cannot be drawn from a complete absence of evidence. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2cb4e4b0ab0bf6072172

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner (2) [2019] NSWSC 1225 (22 March 2019)

The Court issued a procedural ruling rejecting the self-represented plaintiff's application to cross-examine the Legal Services Commissioner regarding alleged "association bias" related to the Freemasons. Campbell J ruled that the plaintiff's subjective anxieties lacked any factual foundation or logical connection to a deviation from lawful decision-making, rendering the proposed questions legally inadmissible under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2e23e4b0ab0bf6072179

Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 728 (12 June 2020)

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commission's decision not to investigate his complaint against a psychiatrist who diagnosed him with a delusional disorder during a medico-legal consultation. Rothman J dismissed the summons, holding that the Commission did not owe a duty of procedural fairness to the complainant at the assessment stage, any initial unfairness was cured by the internal review process, and the psychiatrist was legally entitled to exercise clinical judgment. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/172a5b44aaff5bc6cd1c9726

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWSC 1008 (7 August 2020)

The plaintiff sought judicial review after the Commissioner closed parts of his professional misconduct complaints against his former solicitors under section 277 of the Uniform Law. Campbell J dismissed the proceedings, concluding that decisions to close disciplinary complaints do not affect the legal rights or liabilities of a complainant and are therefore not amenable to remedies in the nature of certiorari or mandamus. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/173b1bf40fe186db42c96446

Hastwell v Legal Services Commissioner [2021] NSWCA 20

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s application to review the Legal Services Commissioner's decision to discontinue investigating certain disciplinary complaints against his former lawyers. The court affirmed that the professional disciplinary system does not create private rights for complainants, meaning the Commissioner's discretionary decisions are not subject to judicial review as they do not alter the applicant's legal rights. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/177d6a0a6a67c04f465420d0

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620

This Supreme Court ruling details the dismissal of an application made by Mr. Hastwell, who was representing himself, seeking a court referral for free (pro bono) legal assistance under civil procedure rules. Justice Campbell determined that asking the legal profession to manage the entirety of these highly complex professional negligence lawsuits exceeded the intended limits of the voluntary scheme. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/184bb1d874628120d4f20498

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers [2023] NSWSC 654 (15 June 2023)

In an ongoing lawsuit against his former law firm for negligence and breach of contract, Elkaim AJ granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim to correct deficiencies. However, the Court ordered the removal of a personal injury claim for anxiety due to limitation period issues, struck out a misconceived statutory allegation, and directed the plaintiff to properly re-draft the particulars regarding the risk of harm. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2023] NSWSC 1016

In the first-instance proceeding before the Supreme Court, Justice Cavanagh summarily dismissed Mr. Hastwell’s lawsuit against psychiatrist Dr. Julian Parmegiani for alleged negligence in preparing a medico-legal report. The court ruled that because the specialist was retained under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct for a potential dispute, he enjoyed absolute witness immunity, making the claim untenable. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18a216190c3111e1213d2196

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2024] NSWCA 55

In this proceeding before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, the applicant, Mr. Haydyn Hastwell, was granted leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his case. The matter involves an issue of significant public and legal importance in Australia: determining the precise scope and limits of witness immunity for expert medical witnesses regarding reports prepared out of court prior to the commencement of formal litigation. Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e34e1481a52d041a54f624

Other problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional Misconduct

There were no laws making lawyers immune for serious breach of conduct. The good example is Livers loosing his licence even if he found a way to get it back.

Disciplinary action

Actions against solicitor can be taken after the disciplinary actions was taken against the lawyer. This makes process easier. However, there is a problem that there is shorter 3 year limit for personal injury claims against lawyers and disciplinary investigations take long time.

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

Small summary: This NSW Supreme Court case involved disciplinary action against a solicitor after allegations that she altered documents connected with personal injury claims and used false claims assessment certificates to obtain financial advantage. It is highly relevant to the keywords “professional discipline”, “professional misconduct”, “dishonesty”, “alteration of evidence/documents”, “false statements”, and personal injury claims.

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

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Grubisa

Small summary: This NCAT disciplinary matter involved a solicitor who was found to have engaged in serious professional misconduct. The allegations included misleading the Law Society, approving investigators to use false identities, attempting to obtain privileged information by deception, and failing to act properly in relation to conflicts of interest. This is useful for “professional misconduct”, “dishonesty/misleading conduct”, “false identity/false statements”, and “non-disclosure/conflict” arguments.

Case link: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/ncat-recommends-sydney-solicitor-dominique-grubisa-be-banned-from-industry/news-story/db722841f45e2e0ef3eaca82ef9283ac

Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey [2009] QLPT 20

Small summary: This Queensland disciplinary case involved a solicitor found guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The case included misleading conduct, trust money issues, and later a finding that the solicitor was dishonest and misleading when giving evidence before the disciplinary tribunal. It is useful for the keywords “professional discipline”, “professional misconduct”, “dishonesty”, “misleading conduct”, and false evidence/testimony.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QLPT/2009/20.html

Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey [2009] QLPT 26

Small summary: This was the penalty/removal stage following the misconduct findings against Dempsey. The Tribunal treated his dishonesty in evidence as very serious and recommended that his name be removed from the roll. This is useful to show how disciplinary bodies treat dishonesty and misleading evidence by a legal practitioner.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QLPT/2009/26.html

Legal Services Commissioner v Tampoe

Small summary: This Queensland disciplinary case involved a lawyer connected with the Schapelle Corby matter. The conduct included statements that brought the legal profession into disrepute and claims about inventing a defence. The Tribunal recommended that the practitioner be removed from the roll. It is useful for “professional misconduct”, “misleading/public statements”, and conduct damaging confidence in the legal profession.

Case link: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QLPT/2009/14.html

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Buckley

Small summary: This NSW disciplinary matter involved a solicitor found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct over public/social media conduct, including encouraging people to provide false information to ASIC and using derogatory or misleading language about courts. It is useful for “professional misconduct”, “false information”, “misleading conduct”, and conduct undermining confidence in the administration of justice.

Case link: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gympie/police-courts/nathan-buckley-guilty-of-misconduct-over-covid-posts-faces-nsw-law-ban/news-story/b991de5dabd36ffd0568270f78c3153c

Kim Louise Shepherd — South Australia disciplinary finding

Small summary: This South Australian disciplinary matter involved a lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct for making false and dishonest statements in an affidavit and poor drafting of documents. It is useful for “professional misconduct”, “dishonesty”, “false statements”, and “misleading evidence/document” arguments.

Case link: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/exposed-20-lawyers-found-guilty-of-misconduct-in-south-australia-in-2024/news-story/37883ca5ab9cea1cf641b34faa8e7de4

John Mark Fitzpatrick — South Australia disciplinary finding

Small summary: This disciplinary matter involved repeated breaches, including dishonesty, making false and misleading statements, acting without instructions, delay, breach of court orders, and failure to respond to regulators. The practitioner was ultimately struck off the roll. It is useful for “professional misconduct”, “dishonesty”, “false/misleading statements”, “non-disclosure/failure to respond”, and serious repeated breaches.

Case link: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/roll-call-the-lawyers-whose-professional-conduct-was-found-wanting-in-south-australia-in-2025/news-story/db510a2bef35729d668a1e71dbe64686

Mark Christopher Sander — South Australia disciplinary finding

Small summary: This disciplinary finding involved a solicitor who misled a complainant about eligibility to make an estate claim, delayed the matter, failed to respond properly, and dishonestly misrepresented a financial offer. It is useful for “professional misconduct”, “misleading client”, “dishonesty”, and false/misleading statements in legal advice.

Case link: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/roll-call-the-lawyers-whose-professional-conduct-was-wanting-in-south-australia-in-2025/news-story/db510a2bef35729d668a1e71dbe64686

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Thomson

Small summary: This NSW matter concerned Craig Thomson being removed from the roll of lawyers after criminal convictions connected with the Health Services Union expenses affair. It is relevant to “professional discipline”, “dishonesty”, “false/misleading conduct”, and workers/union-related conduct, though it is not an ILARS/WIRO workers compensation solicitor case.

Case link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5bc48f41e4b0b9ab4021080c

Corruption Collusion

Roxanne Marie McCardle — Western Australia / South Australia disciplinary finding

This disciplinary finding involved a lawyer found guilty of professional misconduct in Western Australia and later struck from the South Australian roll. The conduct included maintaining proceedings that amounted to abuse of process, making scandalous or improper submissions, misreading from a transcript in a way that could mislead an appeal court, and filing a materially false affidavit. This is relevant to “professional misconduct”, “false affidavit”, “misleading court”, “abuse of process”, and “corruption of legal process”.

Case link: https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/exposed-20-lawyers-found-guilty-of-misconduct-in-south-australia-in-2024/news-story/37883ca5ab9cea1cf641b34faa8e7de4

Time limit

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

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=