NSW Work Injury Damages
Workers who suffer injuries because of their employer’s negligence may have the right to pursue work injury damages (WID) or common law damages, depending on the jurisdiction. While all states apply negligence principles, the legislation, available damages, and procedural gateways differ significantly between NSW, Queensland, the ACT, and Western Australia.
This consolidated guide outlines how WID claims operate across these jurisdictions, supported by key case examples and statutory frameworks.
Regardless of location, a worker pursuing damages must establish:
Across all states, these claims commonly arise in industries involving physical labour, animals, machinery, or hazardous tasks, where employers must implement adequate systems of work, supervision, training, and assistance.
Although the underlying principles are consistent, the entitlement to damages and statutory thresholds vary widely.
| Jurisdiction | Governing Legislation | Available Damages | Threshold Requirements | Example / Context |
| NSW | Workers Compensation Act 1987; Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 | Past and future economic loss only | Must prove ≥15% Whole Person Impairment (WPI) | McCormick v Mt Pleasant Stud Farm: $1.395M awarded for failure to provide adequate assistance |
| QLD | Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 | Economic loss + general damages (ISV-based) | Must receive a Notice of Assessment & meet procedural gateways | Archer v Simon Transport: employer must take precautions for foreseeable risks |
| ACT | Workers Compensation Act 1951; Workers’ Compensation and Safety Act 2011 | Broad damages including economic loss, pain & suffering, loss of amenities | No restrictive caps like NSW/QLD | Claims often arise from hazardous duties without supervision |
| WA | Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 | Past & future earning capacity loss, with statutory limits | Must elect to sue + meet minimum WPI threshold | Claims common in agriculture, livestock and machinery work |
In NSW, WID claims sit at the intersection of negligence and the statutory workers compensation scheme. Damages are strictly limited to:
In McCormick, the plaintiff, an experienced horse trainer, fell while breaking in a young horse, a recognised hazardous task. The Court found the employer negligent for failing to provide an assistant capable of controlling the horse during the process.
The worker’s ongoing neck, arm and shoulder injuries rendered him unfit for his occupation. Sidis ADCJ held that, even if some residual capacity existed, the plaintiff would present poorly to potential employers due to his disabilities.
He received $1,395,525 for economic loss.
Queensland workers may pursue common law damages if they can:
Unlike NSW, general damages for pain and suffering may be awarded, based on an Injury Scale Value (ISV).
In Archer, although the dispute concerned procedural matters, the case reinforced that employers must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks, especially where tasks involve heavy machinery, lifting, or hazardous work environments.
A typical Queensland claim involves injuries to the back, spine, shoulders, or upper limbs, often preventing a return to the worker’s usual role and supporting substantial future economic loss awards.
In the ACT, work injury damages can be pursued under:
The ACT permits broader damages than NSW or QLD, including:
There are no restrictive caps similar to NSW’s WID limitations or Queensland’s ISV system.
Claims often arise from hazardous duties, such as handling animals or machinery, performed without adequate supervision, training, or assistance. Where permanent disability prevents a worker from returning to meaningful employment, significant compensation may be awarded.
In WA, injured workers must:
WA follows a more structured statutory framework, limiting compensable damages to:
Similar to NSW, non-economic damages are constrained.
Industries involving livestock, machinery, or agricultural work frequently give rise to claims. Employers must implement safe systems of work, including training, adequate supervision, and risk management, particularly where duties carry inherent unpredictability or physical risk.
Courts focus on whether the worker can return to physically demanding employment. If disability prevents such employment, future economic loss can be substantial.
While all Australian jurisdictions allow injured workers to claim damages where employer negligence is proven, each state differs significantly in:
In summary:
Across all regions, courts consistently assess whether the worker retains any meaningful earning capacity. Where disabilities severely impact employability, substantial compensation may be awarded.
If you have suffered a work-related injury due to employer negligence, obtaining legal advice early is essential to ensure you meet statutory requirements and maximise your entitlement to compensation.
