A serious workplace injury can affect much more than your immediate health. If you can no longer return to your usual work, or your ability to earn an income has been permanently affected, the financial consequences can continue for many years.
In NSW, some injured workers may be entitled to pursue a work injury damages claim where their injury was caused by their employer’s negligence.
A recent Supreme Court of NSW decision, Pratt v Ditton [2026] NSWSC 1041, provides a useful example of how these claims can arise and how significant the loss of earning capacity can become following a serious workplace accident.
What happened in Pratt v Ditton?
Thomas Pratt was working as a labourer on a construction site at Pennant Hills when he suffered a serious crush injury to his left foot.
Steel beams approximately 17.5 metres long and weighing at least 750 kilograms each were being unloaded by crane.
Mr Pratt’s supervisor was a trained and licensed dogman. Mr Pratt was not.
After a pair of beams had been placed on the ground, the supervisor called out, “They’re right”. Mr Pratt reasonably understood this as an instruction to approach the beams and disconnect the slings.
The beams had not been properly checked for stability. As Mr Pratt approached, they toppled and crushed his lower left leg, foot and ankle.
What did the Court decide?
Justice Fagan found that the employer had breached its duty of care.
Importantly, the Court found that reasonable precautions could have included having the qualified dogman inspect the beams from a safe position, ensuring they were stable before anyone approached, and preventing other workers from entering the danger area.
Instead, Mr Pratt was positively directed towards the load without it first being checked for stability and despite having no dogman training and no ability to properly assess whether the beams were stable.
The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that Mr Pratt was partly responsible for his injuries. He had approached the beams because he reasonably understood that his supervisor had directed him to do so.
The long-term impact of a workplace injury
The consequences for Mr Pratt were significant.
He suffered multiple fractures and underwent numerous operations over approximately nine years. He developed chronic pain, complex regional pain syndrome and ongoing problems with his foot, ankle and lower back. He also experienced depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Court ultimately found that the injury and its ongoing effects had left him permanently unemployable.
Judgment was entered in his favour for $1,030,742.67, after taking into account deductions including workers compensation payments already received.
What is a work injury damages claim?
A work injury damages claim is different from an ordinary workers compensation claim.
Under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), an eligible worker may be able to claim damages where their workplace injury was caused by their employer’s negligence.
These claims are concerned with economic loss, including past loss of earnings and future loss of earning capacity. There are also specific eligibility requirements and procedural steps that must be satisfied before a claim can proceed.
This means that being seriously injured at work does not automatically establish an entitlement to work injury damages. The circumstances of the accident, the employer’s conduct, the worker’s level of permanent impairment and the financial consequences of the injury all need careful consideration.
Could you have a work injury damages claim?
If you have suffered a serious workplace injury and believe an unsafe system of work, inadequate training, poor supervision or another failure by your employer contributed to the accident, it may be worth obtaining legal advice.
At The Law Office of Conrad Curry, our personal injury lawyers can assess your circumstances, explain the difference between workers compensation and work injury damages, and advise you about your options.
DISCLAIMER
This article reflects the current law at the time of publication. Please note that cases may have been the subject to appeal or subsequent judicial consideration since the date of posting. The decisions referred to are summarised for general understanding only. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance in relation to your situation, please consult with a qualified legal professional.