What happened

In January 2017 the plaintiff was following a site foreman’s direction to move materials and tools to an upper floor when the goods lift unexpectedly jolted and dropped, injuring his neck, left shoulder and arm, and upper and lower back. The employer was deregistered in 2024, and after a 16% whole-person impairment determination and years of statutory weekly payments, the plaintiff pursued modified common-law work injury damages against the Nominal Insurer.

The issues

After the defendant conceded the occurrence of the accident and breach of duty, the dispute concerned causation, the reliability of the plaintiff and medical evidence, employee versus contractor status, and the measure of past and future earning loss. Under the statutory scheme, the modified common-law claim was confined to economic heads rather than non-economic loss.

The court's decision

The Court accepted the plaintiff, who gave evidence through an interpreter, as reliable on the central issues and found the accident aggravated pre-existing degeneration and rendered him totally incapacitated for work from 2017. It allowed past economic loss of AUD 632,387, past superannuation of AUD 50,000, a Fox v Wood tax component of AUD 111,169, future economic loss of AUD 72,728 and future superannuation of AUD 5,000, then deducted prior weekly compensation of AUD 555,845.70.

Understanding the figures

Gross assessed damages were AUD 871,284. After an offset of AUD 555,845.70 for prior weekly workers’ compensation, the net judgment was AUD 315,438.30, with costs payable separately as agreed or assessed.

What this case shows

The decision illustrates why apparent differences between brief clinical histories and forensic testimony must be assessed in light of language, interpretation and the purpose for which records were made. It also shows that inadequately reasoned expert opinions about degeneration or residual work capacity may carry little weight against supported treating evidence and a sustained pre-injury work history.

Why another case may differ

Because breach was conceded during the hearing, the judgment is principally about causation and economic quantum rather than a detailed standard for lift safety. The amounts are historical and depend on the plaintiff’s age, the statutory endpoint at 67, applied discounts, employment findings and the credit for compensation already received.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →