Court cases for personal injury and negligence

Past cases

Australia uses legal system that was developed in Middle Ages England. The actual law my not be enough in finding what you can expect from your case. Among many problems related to this system is publishing past cases, and the abuse of the system is well illustrated by the way PIC publishes their cases.

Past and present cases

You can have a look at the court cases they have been involved in and the results they got. If your solicitor claims to have more than 10 years of experience, but have not been in court even single time, I found it as a clear indication that he is bullshitting your and will push for a settlement at any cost. Determinations from court cases are public.

• Personal Injury Commission provides information where you can find their decisions.
• New South Wales Caselaw - decisions for all courts and Tribunals
• Australasian Legal Information Institute
• Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal - TODO broken link
• Check list of upcoming court cases in online court registry. Maybe you can see the solicitor in action.

Similar cases

One of the ways to look for solicitors is going through past cases where they have dealt with the same problem, for example cost assessment, corrupt government official or lawyers misconduct.

This approach can be very labor intensive and one day I will be able to provide a system to help access verified data, but until this time I am writing a guide and if you are lucky, it may not be so much work.

PIC publishing problem

The PIC publishes some of their decisions. It is unclear how they chose what cases they publish. It well could be that it is decided on personal interests of someone within the PIC who is making these decisions. I will update this if I get any further information. The only thing I was able to test that not all decisions are published, for example I was not able to find determination on my case.

The easiest way to search for PIC decisions is on the Australasian Legal Information Institute site. You case use few keywords to limit search (based on PIC site):

1. Presidential member decision = NSWPICPD e.g. [2021] NSWPICPD 1
2. Non-Presidential member decision = NSWPIC e.g. [2021] NSWPIC 1
3. Medical Appeal Panel and Review Panel decision = NSWPICMP e.g. [2021] NSWPICMP 1
4. Merit Review decision = NSWPICMR e.g. [2021] NSWPICMR 1
5. Merit Review Appeal Panel decision = NSWPICMRA e.g. [2021] NSWPICMRA 1

As of 2026-08-07 it has:

• decisions
• categories of decisions

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 Kott Gunning [2017] FCA 1557 (21 December 2017)

In proceedings arising from a complaint of alleged workplace discrimination, the Federal Court considered Kott Gunning's application for summary dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Bromwich J found that the applicant's complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission satisfied the statutory requirements for commencing Federal Court proceedings. The Court dismissed Kott Gunning's interlocutory application and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis. The Court did not determine the merits of the underlying discrimination allegations.

Link: https://casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-kott-gunning-2

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. The Court held that the material was not relevant because it was not contemporaneous with the 2018 decisions under review and noted 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 concerns lacked a sufficient factual foundation or logical connection to a departure from lawful decision-making, rendering the proposed questions inadmissible under section 192A of the Evidence Act 1995.

Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5d7f2e23e4b0ab0bf6072179

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 3) [2019] FCA 1641 (8 October 2019)

In an interlocutory dispute concerning discovery in proceedings involving alleged workplace discrimination, the Federal Court considered competing applications for the production and identification of documents. Jackson J examined requests to itemise documents in discovery lists, the disclosure of privileged material, additional categories of documents, and documents obtained or filed in other proceedings. The Court determined the discovery issues and reserved consideration of certain costs matters.

Link: https://www.casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-kott-gunning-no-3

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 4) [2019] FCA 1805 (4 November 2019)

The Federal Court considered Mr. Hastwell's application for leave to appeal interlocutory discovery orders made in the proceedings against Kott Gunning. Jackson J dismissed the application for leave to appeal and addressed the allocation of costs arising from earlier hearings and procedural applications. The judgment also considered the procedural history of the litigation and the parties' respective success on contested case management issues.

Link: https://www.casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-kott-gunning-no-4

Hastwell v Kott Gunning (No 5) [2020] FCA 621 (11 May 2020)

The Federal Court considered an application by Kott Gunning to permanently stay proceedings after Mr. Hastwell declined to undergo a psychiatric examination requested in connection with his claims for psychological injury and other damages arising from alleged workplace discrimination. Jackson J examined the necessity of the proposed examination and the consequences of the applicant's refusal. The Court ordered a stay of proceedings, allowing a further opportunity for compliance before the stay took effect.

Link: https://www.casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-kott-gunning-no-5

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 did not affect the legal rights or liabilities of a complainant and were 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 (24 February 2021)

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Hastwell's application for leave to appeal from the dismissal of his judicial review proceedings concerning the Legal Services Commissioner's decision to discontinue investigating certain disciplinary complaints against his former lawyers. The Court considered whether the Commissioner's decisions affected the applicant's legal rights or interests sufficiently to support judicial review and ordered the applicant to pay the Commissioner's costs.

Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/177d6a0a6a67c04f465420d0

Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commission [2021] NSWCA 22 (3 March 2021)

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered Mr. Hastwell's challenge to the Health Care Complaints Commission's decision not to take further action on his complaint concerning a psychiatrist's medico-legal assessment. The Court examined the Commission's statutory powers, the availability of judicial review, and whether any reviewable legal error had been established. The Court dismissed the summons and ordered the applicant to pay costs.

Link: https://casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-health-care-complaints-commission

Hastwell v Kott Gunning [2021] FCAFC 70 (13 May 2021)

The Full Court of the Federal Court considered Mr. Hastwell's application for leave to appeal orders staying his workplace discrimination proceedings following his refusal to attend a psychiatric examination requested by Kott Gunning. The Court examined the procedural character of the stay orders, the admissibility and use of evidence from separate proceedings, and the implications of the applicant's refusal to undergo an independent medical assessment. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Link: https://www.casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-kott-gunning

Hastwell v Federal Court of Australia and the Judges Thereof & Anor [2021] HCATrans 161 (13 October 2021)

In proceedings before the High Court of Australia, Mr. Hastwell sought constitutional or other extraordinary writs in connection with the Federal Court proceedings against Kott Gunning and the handling of his unsuccessful application for leave to appeal. Edelman J considered the procedural history and the availability of the relief sought. The application was dismissed under rule 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004, and costs were ordered in favour of Kott Gunning. This published record is a High Court hearing transcript containing the Court's reasons and orders, rather than a conventional reported HCA judgment.

Link: https://www.casechat.au/cases/au/hastwell-v-federal-court-of-australia-and-the-judges-thereof-anor

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620 (22 November 2022)

This Supreme Court ruling concerns applications made by Mr. Hastwell, who was representing himself, seeking court referrals for free (pro bono) legal assistance in two professional negligence proceedings. Campbell J determined that referring the entirety of these complex lawsuits to the voluntary legal assistance scheme exceeded its intended purpose. The Court dismissed the applications and confirmed that both matters would return before the Registrar for directions.

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 professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract arising from the handling of his employment-related claim, Elkaim AJ granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim subject to corrections. The Court directed the removal of a claim concerning anxiety because of limitation issues, required the removal of a statutory allegation, and instructed the plaintiff to redraft particulars concerning the risk of harm.

Representation

• Counsel
  • Plaintiff: J Polese
  • Defendant: AJ Macauley

• Solicitors
  • Defendant: K & L Gates

Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/188bd9034dc72597af94e2b1

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2023] NSWSC 1016 (24 August 2023)

In the first-instance proceeding before the Supreme Court, Justice Cavanagh dismissed Mr. Hastwell's lawsuit against psychiatrist Dr. Julian Parmegiani for alleged negligence in preparing a medico-legal report. The Court ruled that the circumstances in which the report was prepared brought the claim within the scope of witness immunity, making the proceedings untenable.

Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18a216190c3111e1213d2196

Hastwell v Parmegiani [2024] NSWCA 55 (14 March 2024)

In this proceeding before the New South Wales Court of Appeal, Mr. Haydyn Hastwell was granted leave to appeal the summary dismissal of his claim against Dr. Julian Parmegiani. The proceedings raised questions about the scope of witness immunity for expert medical witnesses, particularly regarding reports prepared outside court and before the commencement of formal litigation. The Court granted leave to appeal and listed the matter for further directions before the Registrar on 27 March 2024.

Link: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e34e1481a52d041a54f624

In the news

Date	Where	Who	Title
2 November 2013	Mondaq / Kott Gunning	Haydyn Hastwell and Vidal Hockless	When every year is a leap year – calculating the ‘Termination Day’ for workers compensation claim in Western Australia
12 August 2020	Lawyers Weekly	Naomi Neilson	Solicitor loses bid against LSC over jurisdictional errors
3 March 2021	Bill Madden's WordPress	Bill Madden	Judicial review of conduct complaint: Expert opinion report
5 March 2021	Benchmark	Benchmark	Weekly Employment Law – Hastwell v Health Care Complaints Commission
19 June 2023	Lawyers Weekly	Naomi Neilson	Lawyer accuses national employment firm of negligence
24 August 2023	Bill Madden's WordPress	Bill Madden	Experts: Claim against a medicolegal expert
28 August 2023	Denning Insurance Law	Denning Insurance Law	Expert witness immunity in Australia
1 September 2023	Carter Newell	Michael Bath	Expert witness immunity re-examined in Hastwell v Parmegiani
September 2023	ExpertsDirect	ExpertsDirect	NSW Supreme Court reaffirms immunity for expert witnesses from suit
8 September 2023	Mondaq	ExpertsDirect	NSW Supreme Court reaffirms immunity for expert witnesses from suit
26 September 2023	Meridian Lawyers	Nevena Brown and Joshua Jones	NSW Supreme Court reaffirms expert witnesses are immune from suit
15 March 2024	Bill Madden's WordPress	Bill Madden	Expert witness immunity – Leave to appeal
3 February 2025	Littles Lawyers	Littles Lawyers	Civil Procedure – Case Law Update – Expert Witness Immunity – Hastwell v Parmegiani [2024 NSWCA 55]

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=

Collins v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2026] NSWDC 185 (12 June 2026)

Case filed 20 after the injury (time limit is 3 years) and accepted by court https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2026/185.html?context=1;query=motor%20vehicle;mask_path=au/cases/nsw/NSWDC

Legal fees

Horribly exhagerrated https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWDC/2009/387.html?context=1;query=MOTOR%20ACCIDENT;mask_path=au/cases/nsw/NSWDC