2 min read

24 February 2026

In this case, the County Court examined the impact of surveillance evidence on a WorkCover serious injury application, granting leave for pain and suffering damages but refusing pecuniary loss damages.

Facts

Ms Hipworth sought leave to bring proceedings for pain and suffering and pecuniary loss damages arising from a workplace injury sustained while working at Nepean School in March 2015. She alleged that the injury aggravated her pre-existing spinal condition and significantly affected her ability to work.

The Victorian WorkCover Authority relied on surveillance footage and vocational evidence to challenge the extent of her alleged limitations. The Court ultimately granted leave for pain and suffering damages but refused leave in respect of pecuniary loss damages.

Principles Used to Come to the Decision

The Court focused on the reliability of the plaintiff's evidence regarding her symptoms, functional limitations and work capacity. While the plaintiff relied on medical evidence supporting her claim, the defendant relied on surveillance footage and vocational evidence suggesting she retained a greater level of function than alleged.

The Court accepted that the workplace injury aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing spinal condition. However, inconsistencies between the plaintiff's reported limitations and the surveillance footage affected the weight given to her evidence and some of the medical opinions based upon it.

Decision

The Court granted leave to pursue pain and suffering damages, accepting that the workplace injury aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing spinal condition and had ongoing consequences.

However, the Court refused leave for pecuniary loss damages, finding that the evidence did not establish the plaintiff's claim regarding the extent of her loss of earning capacity.

Lessons / New Principles

Hipworth v VWA highlights the importance of credibility in serious injury applications. Surveillance evidence may significantly affect the weight given to a claimant's evidence and supporting medical opinions where it appears inconsistent with the claimant's reported limitations.

The case also demonstrates that a claimant may succeed in obtaining leave for pain and suffering damages while failing to obtain leave for pecuniary loss damages.

How we can assist…

At Bastion Legal, we help everyday Australians navigate complex legal issues with practical, straightforward advice. Our team is dedicated to resolving disputes, protecting rights, and achieving fair outcomes. Whatever challenge you’re facing, we provide clear guidance, strong representation, and practical solutions tailored to your situation.

If you’re facing a situation like the one discussed above, you do not need to face these issues alone. We’re here to protect your interests and work towards the outcome you deserve.

Contact us today for a free consultation and take the next step with confidence.

CONTACT US