We are all aware that if injured at work we are covered by our employer’s workers compensation insurance. The benefits available to us are defined under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
The benefits available to injured workers have undergone “reform” over many years. What I have come to learn is that when governments “reform” benefits, all that occurs is a reduction in the benefits available.
Unfortunately this is what workers have to contend with today. That is, the benefits available to injured workers are now far less than what they have ever been. This is indeed regrettable. Many of you would have read and seen reports of incredible debt carried by the workers compensation scheme. However, the reasons for same are not in any way connected to the benefits payable to injured workers. The reason why the scheme has been, and continues to be, so inefficient and expensive is a direct result of the incompetence and neglect of those involved in its management.
Under the current scheme, a worker injured at work would ordinarily be entitled to the following benefits:

Weekly benefits of compensation (wages) paid at the rate of 95% for the first 13 weeks.
Thereafter, weekly benefits to be paid at the rate of 80% for the remaining entitlement period of 14 to 130 weeks.
Reimbursement and/or payment of all reasonable and necessary medical and ancillary benefits including hospital, pharmaceutical, rehabilitative and expenses, as approved by the workers compensation insurer.
Lump sum compensation in the event that the physical injury has resulted in a whole person impairment of greater than 10% as assessed in accordance with the NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment which adopts the 5th Edition AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
Lump sum compensation in the case of hearing loss of greater than 10% whole person impairment as assessed under the 5th Edition AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment.
Lump sum compensation available for whole person impairment for psychiatric/psychological injury if the degree of impairment is at least 15% whole person impairment as assessed under the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS) by a qualified Psychiatrist.
The current lump sum compensation amount available in the case of the death of a worker, payable to the dependents is $834,200.00, where liability has been accepted for the death.

In addition to the above referred to benefits all the legal costs of the worker in connection with any claim that is brought will be covered by a grant of legal funding obtained through the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office (WIRO). That is, the worker will receive the entirety of the benefits to which they are entitled and pay no legal costs to Brydens Lawyers for legal representation in their workers compensation claim.
Brydens Lawyers are experts in the prosecution of all workers compensation claims. If you have been injured at work then you may be entitled to lump sum compensation as well as have rights to benefits under your superannuation policy. If you are injured at work see the experts at Brydens Lawyers and contact us on 1800 848 848 or at brydens.com.au. At Brydens Lawyers #WE DO workers compensation claims.

What are the steps involved in obtaining Parenting Orders?
Applications for Parenting Orders can be brought by either or both parents, a grandparent, or any other significant person in a child’s life.
Initially the party seeking a Parenting Order is required to attend, participate in, and make a genuine attempt to resolve any parenting issues at a family dispute resolution conference. Following such a conference a certificate is issued to the parties to reflect the outcome.
If agreement can be reached as between the interested parties then same can be formalised through an Application for Consent Orders. If agreement is not reached then further negotiations can be undertaken with the assistance of a solicitor, mediator, or counsellor.
If agreement can be reached as between the interested parties then same can be formalised through an Application for Consent Orders. If agreement is not reached then further negotiations can be undertaken with the assistance of a solicitor, mediator, or counsellor.
In such court proceedings it is of course the best interests of the child that are of paramount importance. Section 60B of the Family Law Act 1975 provides that the best interests of the child are met by:

Ensuring that the child has the benefit of both parents having a meaningful involvement in their life, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and
Protecting the child from physical and psychological harm and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and
Ensuring that the child receives adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
Ensuring that parents fulfil their duties and meet their responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of the child.

There are also additional factors that the court will consider on a case-by-case basis. Once the matter is in the court system it can be finalised by either Consent (i.e. agreement as between the parties) or by final Orders of the Court (i.e. by the determination of the judge).
Brydens Lawyers are experts in helping you with all family court proceedings including applications for Parenting Orders. For specialist advice and representation with respect to all family law matters contact Brydens Lawyers on 1800 848 848 or at brydens.com.au. At Brydens Lawyers #WE DO family law.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by ARLC commissioner, former professional NRL player and coach Wayne Pearce!
They discuss the reasoning behind the increase of player injuries throughout the 2020 season, how State of  Origin has developed over the years, and Wayne’s business- Wayne Pearce Advantage.Take a listen!
This is part two of two, be sure to also listen to part one!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast

What is the difference between Medical Malpractice and Medical Negligence?
If you are injured in a motor vehicle accident then you will, regrettably, suffer on two fronts. Firstly, the injury itself and secondly, the indignity of having to deal with an insurance company for the purpose of seeking compensation under the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017.
The Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 was imposed upon the innocently injured motorists of New South Wales by the current New South Wales Liberal Government. It was done, as far as I can tell, for two reasons. Firstly, to seek to reduce the price of green slip insurance and secondly, to bolster the profits of insurance companies. There was nothing contained within the legislation that served the interests of the injured motorist.
The price of green slip insurance was reduced following the introduction of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and this was achieved by substantially slashing the benefits that would otherwise be payable to an innocently injured motorist under the policy by the insurance company. It is not difficult to reconcile that if there was to be a reduction in green slip premiums that would impact upon profits of the insurers, something had to be done. And it was.
What was done was the enacting of legislation that provided for insurers only having to pay out a fraction of what was previously being paid by way of claims made by innocently injured motor accident victims.
We now have a scheme under which the innocently injured motor accident victim receives the absolute minimum level of compensation that the government felt it could get away with. I have no doubt that had the government saw the opportunity to reduce the benefits even further, it would have. After all, it is not innocently injured motor accident victim that is donating large sums of money to political parties.
Under the current scheme there is provision for payment of medical expenses as incurred. There is provision for payment of wage loss (subject to a deductible) and there is the very limited prospect of recovering any compensation for pain and suffering. Such compensation is restricted to only those people who suffer very significant if not horrendous injuries.
And not only do you receive minimal benefits, but you also have the pleasure of battling an insurance company claims officer every step of the way.
Unfortunately, we have had, for far too long, our intelligence insulted by this government and State Insurance Regulatory Authority trying to convince us that the current scheme is fair and balanced and works well by serving the interests not only of the innocently injured motorist but also of all motorists by securing a reduction in green slip premiums.
That is not the case at all. The fact is that it is the innocently injured motorist who does not receive proper compensation for their injuries which subsidises the reduction in green slip premiums and the profits of insurers.
I would have been appreciative had the government been more transparent by saying that their political interests were better served by securing a reduction in green slip premiums for all motorists at the cost of benefits available to the innocently injured motorist. It is far less offensive than an attempt to convince us that the scheme enacted is fair and reasonable.
It is also of concern that something in the order of 75% of motor accident claimants are not legally represented. These are persons who find themselves at the mercy of insurance company claims officers who are expertly trained in frustrating and minimising claims. This should come as no surprise. After all, claims officers are the employees of the insurance company and their obligation, as a claims officer, is to serve the interests of their master, not the claimant. Any thought that a claims officer would act in the best interests of a claimant is pure fantasy.
Accordingly, there are 75% of persons injured in motor vehicle accidents who will make a claim on an insurance company without the benefit of legal representation and will not be dealt with fairly. They will be significantly disadvantaged in having to deal with claims officers directly. They will not have the benefit of legal advice as to the benefits to which they are entitled. Invariably, they will not receive all the compensation that otherwise would have been available.
It is only by engaging your own solicitor can you be assured that you will receive your full entitlements to compensation as available under the current scheme. Even though the benefits are miserly in the extreme it is important to ensure that you recover what you are entitled to. At Brydens Lawyers we are experts in the prosecution of claims on behalf ofinnocently injured motorists to ensure that they receive the compensation that they deserve. Strict time limits apply with respect to the making of such claims. Do not delay – contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au. Brydens Lawyers – #WEDO motor accident claims.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by ARLC commissioner, former professional NRL player and coach
Wayne Pearce!
They discuss the catalyst for his affinity for football, how injury and setbacks moulded his leadership style, and the role that the Kangaroo Tour has played in shaping the Australian rugby league landscape. This is part one of two, stay tuned next week to hear the remainder of the conversation!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast

What is the difference between Medical Malpractice and Medical Negligence?
Often we are asked as to whether there is any difference between medical malpractice and medical negligence. The short answer is, no.
The terms are largely interchangeable. The prefix “mal” is Latin for bad or evil. Accordingly, malpractice generally refers to the conduct of a professional such as a doctor, lawyer or accountant which does not meet industry standards.
A medical negligence claim involves the prosecution of proceedings as against a healthcare professional whose treatment does not accord with peer professional opinion as a result of which the patient has suffered injury, loss or damage.
It can be seen therefore that there is little differential in any meaningful sense between medical malpractice and medical negligence. In fact, it can be said that there is no medical negligence without medical malpractice.
Brydens Lawyers are the experts in the prosecution of all medical negligence claims. Strict time limits apply to the prosecution of such claims and in the event that you or anyone you know has any concerns with to treatment received which has resulted in injury, loss or damage, then contact Brydens Lawyers without delay on 1800 848 848 or at brydens.com.au. Brydens Lawyers – #WE DO medical negligence claims.

Do I need a Will if I have no assets?
A Will is a legal document which sets out the manner in which you would like your assets, to be
distributed following your death. The Will provides for the appointment of an Executor who will
administer the terms of the Will and oversee the distribution of the Estate. A Will can also provide
for the nomination of guardians of infant children and even the way you wish for your body to be
disposed.
The question then arises, is a Will required if I have no assets? The short answer is no. If there are no
assets to be distributed, then a Will is not required. However, a Will is not a static instrument. That
is, it will remain in place as a valid legal document until your passing. Although you may have no
assets now which could be distributed, that may not always be the case. A Will, which is a relatively
simple document, can be put into place to provide for all and any assets that you may have as at
your death even though such assets do not exist when the Will is created.
For all legal advice in relation to the preparation of a Will or any matters arising concerning a dispute
under a Will and the distribution of Estate assets, contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or
brydens.com.au. Brydens Lawyers are the experts when it comes to Wills and Estate matters – #WE
DO Wills and Estates.
Brydens Lawyers is available to assist by providing expert legal advice and representation to ensure recovery by dependants and the Estate of the worker the totality of benefits to which they are entitled. For a free, one-on-one consultation with respect to any enquiry concerning a workers compensation claim, contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au. At Brydens Lawyers – #WE DO workers compensation claims.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by David Le, a solicitor from our Personal Injury division!
They discuss the reason David ventured into the legal industry, the rewarding element to working in Personal Injury law, and the impact that a lawyer can have in regard to their clients. Take a listen!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast

The Supreme Court decision in Moore v Aubusson is worth noting. The matter concerned a dispute between Mr Moore and his partner, Ms Andreasen and the Executor of the estate of a Ms Murphy, Mr Aubusson.
Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen were neighbours of Ms Murphy. They owned No 70 Louisa Road Birchgrove. Ms Murphy was the owner of two adjoining properties being Nos 66 and 68.
The proceedings concerned a promise by Ms Murphy to Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen that she would leave them the whole of her estate in return for them looking after her for the rest of her life and for them agreeing not to undertake any building works on their property to the extent that those works would impede the view from Ms Murphy’s property.
The evidence established that Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen fulfilled their side of the agreement in that they did provide care to Ms Murphy for the balance of her life and did not undertake any work which compromised the view from her property. Unfortunately, the Will left by Ms Murphy did not leave her estate to Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen as had been promised.
Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen argued that the testamentary promise that was made was not revocable given the existence of a testamentary contract and that the promise made for future reward was sufficiently certain to be enforceable. It was also argued that the Executor of Ms Murphy’s estate was estopped from acting contrary to the promises that had been made and where the unconscionable conduct consists of a party resiling from a promise which has induced conduct on the part of the other party to its detriment, the relief which is necessary will reflect the value of the promise.
In the result the Court was satisfied that there had been sufficiently clear representation made by Ms Murphy to the effect that should Mr Moore and Ms Andreasen look after her so that she could remain in her own home for as long as possible, then Ms Murphy would leave the Louisa Road properties to them. The Court ordered that the properties be transferred toMr Moore and Ms Andreasen in equal shares. The court was not satisfied that the promise allegedly made referenced the entire estate.
The law concerning testamentary dispositions, testamentary contracts and testamentary promises can be complicated and complex. However, it need not be. Brydens Lawyers are experts in all Wills and Estate matters or disputes. Should you have any concern with respect to any matter arising from the disposition of property under a Will or if there has not been distribution of property as promised, then rights may be available to seek relief. For all and any enquiries arising from any matters pertaining to a Will or Will dispute, contact Brydens Lawyers without delay on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au.

What if the worker dies as a result of their work?
Regrettably, despite every reasonable precaution being taken, workers suffer injury during the course of their employment. In fact, according to Safe Work Australia, there were in excess of 107,000 serious workers compensation claims made throughout Australia in 2017-18 and of course with serious injury comes a risk that a worker will die from the injury sustained./p>
In the unfortunate event a worker dies as a result of their employment or during their employment, there are avenues for the dependants of the deceased, or the deceased’s Estate, to seek compensation or death benefits payable in NSW under the workers compensation scheme.
Under the current scheme benefits are available as follows:

A lump sum payment which presently stands at $827,400 (this amount is indexed twice a year so will vary according to the date of death of the worker)
Weekly compensation benefits paid at the rate of $149.30 for each dependant child up to the age of 16 (or 21 if the child is engaged in full time education)
Reasonable funeral expenses which will include funeral directors fees, the funeral service, coffin, mourning car, flowers etc.

In the event that the workers’ compensation insurer accepts liability for the claim arising from the death of the worker it will arrange for the payment of the lump sum to any dependants who were wholly or partially dependant on the deceased worker for financial support at the time of their death. If there is more than one dependant the lump sum is apportioned as between all defendants and such an apportionment is determined by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
If the deceased did not have any dependants at the time of their death, the lump sum is still paid and forms part of the Estate of the deceased to be distributed as per the provisions of a valid Will or as determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Dust Diseases
In the event that a worker dies as a result of a dust disease (eg asbestosis) the benefits will vary from what is set out above. There may be a claim for lump sum compensation up to $373,300 with weekly benefits of compensation payable at the rate of $307.90 to dependants.
The amount that a dependant receives is determined by the extent of their dependency on the deceased. That is, a determination is made as to whether the dependant was wholly or partially dependent upon the deceased and if partially, to what extent.
Death Cover/Life Insurance
Another avenue the Estate of the deceased can seek to recover benefits would be pursuant to any eligible life insurance policy provided for by the deceased’s superannuation fund. This is often referred to as a “death cover” and is a type of life insurance which is not always provided by a superannuation fund by default. It would be payable in the event that the worker dies as a result of or during the course of their employment. However, such benefits are also generally available to the Estate of a deceased worker even if the injury or illness arose outside the scope of their employment.
The amount payable under death cover is dependent on the terms of the life insurance policy as at the date of the worker’s death. In the payment of such a claim by the superannuation fund, the benefits are received by the dependants of the deceased or payable to the deceased’s Estate.
Brydens Lawyers are the experts in prosecution of all workers compensation claims. In the unfortunate event that a worker dies as a result of an injury or illness, whether work-related or otherwise, Brydens Lawyers is available to assist by providing expert legal advice and representation to ensure recovery by dependants and the Estate of the worker the totality of benefits to which they are entitled. For a free, one-on-one consultation with respect to any enquiry concerning a workers compensation claim, contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au. At Brydens Lawyers – #WE DO workers compensation claims.

Can I claim for damages if the accident was partly my fault?
Generally speaking, for all personal injury claims, it is necessary to establish, ultimately to the satisfaction of the court, that another party was responsible for the accident which resulted in the injury sustained.
In order to recover damages in a personal injury claim you need to prove to the court:

that you were owed a duty of care
that the duty of care was breached
that the breach of the duty was causative of the injury, loss or damage.

Once these matters have been established the court will go on to assess the damages to which you are entitled.
However, in defence of the claim the other party may assert that the injured person was responsible for their own injuries, at least in part. The court will then be called upon to apportion liability as between the parties. That is, determine who was at fault and to what
extent.
In any liability dispute there will be evidence called. The evidence will comprise testimony from the interested parties as well as any documentary, photographic or other evidence that may be available concerning the circumstances of the accident. Often there is expert evidence introduced also on the question of liability. The court will determine the question of liability and apportion same as between the parties. Should the court find that the injured person was not in any way contributorily negligent, that is responsible for the accident, then they will be entitled to recover the entirety of the damages assessed in their favour. However, if the court finds that the injured person was in fact, in part, responsible for the accident, then the proportion for which the injured person is found to be responsible will also serve to reduce the damages awarded accordingly. For example, if the injured person was found to be 50% responsible for the accident, then the damages assessed in favour of the injured person will be reduced by 50%.
There are instances where an injured person can be contributorily negligent to the extent of 100% such that even though liability in negligence on the part of the other party has been established, the court is satisfied that it was entirely the actions of the injured person which caused the injury.
Questions of fault however are not relevant in a workers’ compensation claim. An injured worker is entitled to compensation from the employer’s workers compensation insurer even though the employer may not have been negligent. It is only if the injury is deliberately self-inflicted that the worker would not be entitled to recover benefits.
Brydens Lawyers are experts in the prosecution of all personal injury claims. Whether injured in a motor vehicle accident, work accident or on public or private property, contact Brydens Lawyers without delay on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au. Strict time limits can apply to the making of any personal injury claim. At Brydens Lawyers #WE DO personal injury claims.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s special edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by NSW Blues legends Nathan Hindmarsh and Steve ‘Blocker’ Roach!
They discuss various topics, including how Origin has changed between when they were playing to now, the players who have defined Origin over the years, and their predictions for this year’s series.
This is part two of two- part one is also available to listen to via our website!

Download the podcast

When should I update my Will?
 
Often an enquiry is made as to whether a Will needs to be updated. The answer is yes and no.
That is, a Will, once made, is valid for the balance of the Testator’s natural life. It does not need to be renewed or updated to remain valid. However, it is important to ensure that the Will, once made, fully encapsulates the intentions of the Testator as to the distribution of their Estate particularly if and when there are a change in circumstances.
A Will should be updated, or at least reviewed, when there is a major life change or event. Such a change could occur in the following circumstances:

You marry or divorce;
The birth or death of a partner or child;
The death or change in relationship between the Testator and the currently appointed Executor or Trustee; or
A major change in the Testator’s financial circumstances from the time the Will was drafted.

Even if there have been no major life change it is still prudent to undertake a review of your Will every 3 to 5 years to ensure it continues to fulfill the testamentary intentions of the Testator.
Brydens Lawyers are experts in the drafting, reviewing and updating of Wills. For any matter concerning your Will contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or brydens.com.au. Brydens Lawyers – #WE DO Wills and Estates.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!

In this week’s special edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by NSW Blues legends Nathan Hindmarsh and Steve ‘Blocker’ Roach!
They discuss various topics including their earliest memories of Origin, the difference felt between playing a regular club game compared to an Origin game, and their thoughts on how the timing change in this year’s series will impact upon the players.
This is part one of two- so stay tuned for next week to hear the discussion continue!
Take a listen!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast

Can I be arrested by the Police without evidence of my guilt?
There are a number of circumstances where Police have powers to arrest you. These can include:

They have reasonable suspicion that you have (or are about to) commit an offence;
They have a warrant for your arrest;
They have stopped you from breaching the peace (i.e. threatening violence);
They believe on reasonable grounds that you have breached bail conditions; or
They need to serve an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO).

A charge is a formal accusation that a person has committed an offence and, as with some of the powers of arrest, does not necessarily need to be supported by evidence at that time. Police may have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence relying upon evidentiary material which may then be available. This could include:

Testimony, including victim and witness statements;
Hard evidence such as CCTV footage or forensic evidence; or
Documents, for example, bank statements or photographs.

This evidence will be presented at the trial to support or prove the facts in the Police case. Such evidence is considered by the judge, jury or magistrate to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused. Ultimately, the guilt of the accused needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. In the event that the Police are unable to satisfy this burden then the accused will be found not guilty.
Brydens Lawyers are experts in the defence of all criminal matters. Should you require legal advice and representation with respect to any criminal matter then contact Brydens Lawyers without delay on 1800 848 848 or contact us at brydens.com.au. Brydens Lawyers #WE DO criminal matters.

In a decision made this week in the NSW Court of Appeal, apartment buildings in NSW are now unable to place a blanket ban on occupants having pets. The ruling comes after a legal battle extending over four years between Jo Cooper (in defence of her miniature schnauzer, Angus) and the Horizon apartment building she resides in located in Darlinghurst.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the ban infringed rules stating a bylaw must not be “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”.
The decision to overturn was unanimous amongst all three presiding judges, and furthermore, it was determined that the building owners are to cover Cooper’s legal costs (estimated to be in excess of $250,000 due to the time period the battle has extended over).
Whilst this decision is significant, it is important to note that this precedent does not affect landlord pet bans placed upon tenants living in strata apartments, it only removes the potential for blanket pet bans imposed by unit buildings themselves.
Tenants who live within strata apartments, however, are still liable to follow landlord pet bans.
According to Barrister Richard Gration, who both lives in Horizon and represented them in court, “It’s now not possible to have a blanket ban on animals. If there is to be any ban, then it has to be tailored to protect the amenity of other lot owners, so a bylaw can only exist to restrict, say, barking dogs or screeching cockatoos.
“This does put limits on the extent that owners can democratically create rules for their own buildings, and bylaws now can’t be used for anything people do in their own lot that doesn’t affect others.
“It’s now going to be difficult for those who have a genuine fear of dogs, or who are very allergic to dog and cat hair.”
If they choose to do so, there is a further path of appeal which Horizon can take through the High Court of Australia. However, at least for the foreseeable future, this decision provides that apartment blocks are unable to prohibit occupants’ animal companions by way of a blanket ban.

How is Future Economic Loss calculated in regard to a compensation claim?
One of the more difficult components in a personal injury claim to quantify is “future economic loss” or “loss of future earning capacity”.
In a common law claim, governed by the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002, a person who has successfully sued another in negligence for injuries sustained is entitled to receive, as part of their damages, compensation for future economic loss. Often it is the case that the person injured is employed or was looking to be employed and that the injury suffered in the subject accident has caused an inability to work or a reduction in that person’s earning capacity. The court will then be called upon to assess that loss.
The determination of future economic loss is far more complicated than simply multiplying out the average weekly earnings of the injured person by the number of weeks or years remaining in their working life. For example, if the injured party was earning $1,000 net per week prior to the accident and had 10 years of working life ahead of them, and the medical evidence supported the contention that the injured person would be unable to return to any form of work, then the court, in calculating future economic loss, does not simply multiply $1,000 net per week by 10 years to derive a sum of $520,000.
Because the injured person is receiving the totality of the damages in a lump sum at the time of the hearing there is a compromise called for in the assessing of future economic loss. It is the loss over a period of time that has to be calculated on a lump sum basis at present day values that forms part of the damages awarded to the injured person. There are discount tables utilised to derive that sum. Also, the totality of the damages awarded for future economic loss are invariably reduced by 15 to take into account contingencies in life.
Even if the injured person is not losing money at the time of the hearing of their claim, the court is still required to undertake an assessment of the loss in earning capacity suffered by the injured person which is compensable. In Malec v Hutton, the High Court held that even if the risk of suffering loss in the future is as low as 1%, it must be assessed by the court and form part of the damages to which the injured person is entitled. In order to assess these damages the court will take into account the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured person, the impact that those injuries will have on the person’s ability to undertake their employment duties, the nature of the employment that the injured person has and is likely to perform, the educational qualifications or experience of the injured person and the length of time remaining in their working life. The Court will award damages by either reference to a loss quantified on a weekly basis or on a lump sum basis. For example, the court may find that the injured person, even though not losing any money at the time of the trial, has suffered a $400 per week reduction in their earning capacity and this sum is applied to the discount tables to which I have referred to above for the purpose of deriving a lump sum. Alternatively, the court may determine that a “cushion” of sorts is more appropriate whereby the court determines the damages for future economic loss on a lump sum basis taking into account the matters identified above. That is, rather than undertaking the actuarial calculations to which I have referred, the court may simply award damages on a lump sum basis of say $100,000 or $200,000 or whatever is appropriate.
The calculation of future economic loss or diminution in earning capacity is an area of specialty, one in which Brydens Lawyers can assist. Brydens Lawyers has, for over 40 years, been prosecuting successful personal injury claims on behalf of injured persons and recovering for them damages for economic loss, both past and future. Strict time limits apply to the prosecution of any personal injury claim. For expert legal advice and representation in any personal injury matter, contact Brydens Lawyers today on 1800 848 848 or contact us at brydens.com.au. At Brydens #WE DO personal injury claims.

If a baby has suffered during its birth as a result of medical negligence, how does the claim process work?
There are no more tragic cases undertaken by Brydens Lawyers than those prosecuted on behalf of a parent for a child that has suffered as a result of medical negligence either before or during the birth.
Prosecution of a “birth trauma” case follows the usual course. That is, in order to successfully prosecute such a claim it is necessary to establish negligence on the part of those who are involved and responsible. Such claims would require a determination that the treatment provided, or not provided, did not accord with “peer professional opinion” and that as a result, the child suffered injury loss or damage. In other words, there needs to be, ultimately to the court’s satisfaction, sufficient evidence available to establish a breach of duty of care on behalf of the health professionals involved in the birth of the child.
If the court is satisfied that there was negligence on the part of said healthcare professionals, the damages that are awarded to the child are invariably significant. Often “birth trauma” cases involve the most serious and catastrophic of injuries. The damages awarded by the court would reflect same.
In the event that the injury suffered by the child is of a kind that would prevent the child being able to manage their own affairs, then any damages awarded by the court would be invested with a trustee to manage the child’s finances during their lifetime. If, on the other hand, the injury suffered by the child was of a kind which did not impair the child’s ability to manage their own affairs, then the monies would be invested on the child’s behalf with a trustee until such time as the child attains their majority at 18 years of age.
As I have said above, “birth trauma” cases are the most tragic of all the personal injury claims prosecuted by Brydens Lawyers. Such claims require specialised legal advice and representation, the kind that Brydens Lawyers can provide. Brydens Lawyers has expertly prosecuted claims on behalf of children as a result of birth trauma for decades and successfully recovered proper compensation for the child. Should you or anyone that you know has any such concerns arising from the birth of a child contact Brydens Lawyers without delay. Strict time limits apply with respect to all claims. Brydens Lawyers – #WEDO medical negligence claims for children arising from any birth trauma. Contact Brydens Lawyers without delay on 1800 848 848 or visit us @brydens.com.au.

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by Blake Solly, the CEO of the South Sydney Rabbitohs! 
They discuss Blake’s background as General Manager of Super League, the importance of corporate partnerships within sporting organisations, and how the Rabbitohs season has played out.
Take a listen!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast

Welcome to LawPod by Brydens Lawyers!
In this week’s edition of LawPod; Lee is joined by Blake Solly, the CEO of the South Sydney Rabbitohs!
They discuss Blake’s background as General Manager of Super League, the importance of corporate partnerships within sporting organisations, and how the Rabbitohs season has played out.
Take a listen!
If you have a topic you would like to see featured, please email us directly at [email protected].

Download the podcast