Stephen Young Lawyers 楊豐慈律師事務所

10/06/2026

05/06/2026

Thank you, A Leon for leaving us a review.
Read full review: https://birdeye.cx/9zpcml

28/05/2026

If you are an injured worker who has been pressured to return to work before you were ready, reach out.

24/05/2026

Case study time!

A serious injury claim is not just about whether someone can physically return to work.

Sometimes, people keep working because they feel they have no choice.

In this case, a 29-year-old heavy vehicle mechanic suffered devastating physical and psychological injuries after a high-speed crash on the Hunter Expressway.

Despite his injuries, he tried to rebuild his life. He returned to work in a different role and attempted retraining.

The insurer argued that because he had returned to work, his damages should be reduced.

But the PIC found the reality was very different.

The Member accepted that he was only “holding on” because he wanted to provide for his family, and that his injuries had “essentially overwhelmed” him.

At just 29 years old, he was awarded over $1.4 million in damages.

Judges v AAI Limited t/as GIO [2021] NSWPIC 538
(8 December 2021)

20/05/2026

The insurer had surveillance footage. And it actually backfired.

More info in bio.

17/05/2026

My new team member joined us two months ago. She had seen our cases on social media, big settlements, court wins, seven-figure negotiations. Then she started working here. Her reaction said everything.

This week I asked her, how does the reality compare to what you saw on social media?

She paused. Then she laughed.

Because what she sees on platforms is the highlight reel. The courtroom moments. The seven-figure settlements. The wins.

What she experiences every day is something different.

Calling the insurer because a client was underpaid by $5 in weekly wages, and fighting for every cent. Making sure a client’s physiotherapy does not get cut off. Calling a client the night before an important medical appointment to make sure they actually show up. Explaining an insurance document line by line so they truly understand what they have signed.

This is the work that nobody sees. It is not glamorous. It is detailed, repetitive, and relentless.

But it is exactly this, the unglamorous, painstaking, behind-the-scenes effort of an entire team, that makes the impossible outcomes possible.

We do not just fight the big battles. We show up for all of them.

13/05/2026

Our client came worked as a disability support worker, spending his days caring for people who needed help to live their lives. During a shift, he was the victim of a violent assault. He was pushed from a window and sustained a serious ankle injury.
What began as a workplace injury claim became something far more complex and far more heartbreaking as time went on. He developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. It is not something that resolves with rest or treatment. It is lifelong. And it rendered him completely unable to work.
The legal challenges in this matter were substantial on multiple fronts.
Establishing employer negligence required us to demonstrate that the risk of violence in his working environment was foreseeable, that appropriate safety measures had not been implemented, and that supervision was inadequate. These are not straightforward arguments to build, and the insurer contested them at every stage.
We pushed for the full recognition of what this man had lost, not just in the immediate term, but for the rest of his working life.
The matter ultimately settled for $700,000 in Work Injury Damages.
That figure is not just a number. For a man living with a permanent, painful condition that has taken away his ability to earn an income, it represents a degree of financial security that would otherwise have been entirely out of reach.
If you or someone you know has been injured at work, particularly in circumstances involving workplace violence, a serious or complex medical condition, or a claim that has already been rejected or undervalued, please do not assume that the insurer’s position is the final word. It very often is not

09/05/2026

When a settlement offer arrives from the insurer, the question I hear most often is this: should I accept it, or should I take this to court?

After twenty years of practice and thousands of cases handled, my answer is always the same: there is no standard answer. Because no two cases are the same.

Taking a matter to court means committing to a longer process, higher legal costs, and an outcome that, no matter how strong your case, is never fully guaranteed. When a settlement offer is fair, reasonable, and genuinely reflects what a client is entitled to, accepting it and moving forward is often the right decision. Years of litigation and uncertainty are a real cost, and a good resolution today can be worth more than a better one that may never come.

But when an insurer is deliberately making offers that fall far short of what a case is actually worth, when they are using delay, pressure, or lowball figures as a strategy, going to court is not only justified. It is necessary. And any lawyer worth their position will tell their client that directly and without hesitation.
What concerns me in this industry is the space between those two positions. A lawyer who steers a client toward court because litigation generates higher fees is not acting in that client’s interest. Equally, a lawyer who pushes a client toward a quick settlement because it is simpler and faster for the firm is not acting in that client’s interest either.

The right approach is always the same: assess the case honestly, advise the client clearly on the real risks and realistic prospects on both sides, and then pursue whichever path genuinely serves their best outcome.

I have built everything I have in this profession on that principle. Shortcuts can move things along faster in the short term. But it is integrity, and the reputation it builds over time, that determines how far you actually go.

📩 If you have received a settlement offer and are unsure whether it is fair, reach out.

02/05/2026

There is a particular kind of grief that comes with cases like this one. I have handled thousands of matters over nearly twenty years. But some stay with you in a way that no amount of professional distance can fully absorb.
He came to Australia from Malaysia on his own. He drove for Uber Eats. He had two children waiting for him at home. A four-year-old and a six-year-old. His entire purpose here was to save enough to give them a better life.
During a delivery shift, his vehicle was struck by a bus. He was killed at the scene. He did not get the chance to say goodbye.
In the aftermath, his wife left, abandoning the two children to the care of their elderly grandparents. A family that had been whole was suddenly, devastatingly fractured.
When his family reached out to me, I was not only their lawyer. I am also a father. And in that moment, the two things were inseparable.
The insurer raised an objection to dependency compensation, disputing whether the deceased had in fact been providing financial support to his children, who were living overseas. They used that uncertainty as grounds to refuse payment.
We gathered every piece of documentary evidence that demonstrated what this man had been doing and why he was here. We built the case with the same care and thoroughness I would want for my own family.
The insurer ultimately conceded.
I am under no illusion that money heals this. Those two children are too young to fully understand why their father is gone. But I hope that what we fought for means something, that in the eyes of the law, at least, this man’s life and his sacrifice were not simply passed over.

26/04/2026

Driving is part of everyday life in Australia. For most of us, it feels routine … until it suddenly isn’t.

Two years ago, I acted for a family of three who were on a holiday road trip when two vehicles began engaging in illegal street racing on the road ahead.

To avoid a head-on collision, the family’s driver was forced to veer off the road. Their vehicle struck a tree, and all three family members sustained injuries of varying severity.

The two racing drivers fled the scene immediately. They left no trace.

The stretch of road where the accident occurred had no surveillance cameras. The family’s vehicle was not fitted with a dashcam. There was no footage, no witness with a clear view, and no way to identify the drivers or determine which insurer, if any, covered their vehicles.

For most people in that position, it would feel as though every avenue had closed.

But NSW law anticipates exactly this situation.

Under the relevant legislation, when an at-fault driver cannot be identified after a motor vehicle accident, or where the at-fault vehicle is unregistered or uninsured, the Nominal Defendant, a government-administered scheme, may step in to respond to the claim.

We lodged the claim on behalf of the family. They received fair compensation, engaged fully with their treatment and rehabilitation, and were ultimately able to move forward with their lives.

That outcome is what I work for.

In nearly twenty years of practice, I have stood alongside thousands of families through some of the most difficult moments of their lives, accidents, injuries, loss, and the long road back.

I have learned that no settlement figure can truly restore what was taken. But having the right legal support, someone who knows the system, understands the options, and genuinely fights for your outcome, means you do not have to face that road alone.

If you or your family have been involved in an accident where the other driver fled, was uninsured, or could not be identified, please reach out. Your rights may be more protected than you realise.