Ty Hickey came to the Bar in 2012. He accepts briefs in several areas of practice, including common law, administrative law, commercial law, and building & construction.

Ty began his legal career as a solicitor at Curwoods Lawyers. For several years prior to becoming a solicitor, he worked in-house for a major insurer, and with several law firms in the areas of insurance litigation, claims management, personal injury, and general commercial. Ty's ambition was always to go to the Bar, and he used his time as a solicitor to gain insights and experience needed for a successful career as counsel.

Ty is an adept advocate with a thriving practice. His goal is to continue to build his outstanding reputation for resolution of legal issues. He has a thorough grasp of the competing interests of insurers and solicitors, along with the dynamics between client and solicitor. He applies his level-headed and objective approach to each matter. Ty is committed to reassuring the client throughout the litigation process and consistently maintains good communication.

Ty has been on the NSW Bar Association’s pro bono assistance scheme for the Federal and Supreme Courts. He is currently involved in the pro bono barristers scheme for the Local Court.

Ty co-authored the LexisNexis “Practical Guidance – Personal Injury Module” 2013 with Richard Royle. He also co-authored “Assessing Damages under s151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act” 2013.

Outside of chambers, Ty is an avid soccer fan.

Focus Areas + Select Cases

Robinson v Vogelsang (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1942 - Negligence, personal injury caused by animals, paraplegic injuries, multiple party insurance contracts dispute.

Vero Insurance Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 372 – insurance - collision between train and car at level crossing, claim by railway authorities against insurer of car, whether car owner/driver incurred legal liability "as a result of an accident", whether placing of the car in the path of the train was intentional or inadvertent.

Askew v UGL Rail Services Pty Limited ­– Negligence, personal injury, significant burn injuries in the course of employment, third party tortfeasor, claim governed by Civil Liability Act, interrelation of legislative schemes, claim resolved during course of litigation.

Watson’s Culcairn Hotel Pty Ltd v Dwyer [2016] NSWWCCPD 5 – Workers Compensation Appeal, correct test to apply in claim for cost of hospital and medical treatment, failure to give reasons, legal test for consequential condition.

At any given time, Ty acts in catastrophic injury claims involving issues such as significant brain injuries and paraplegia across all common law jurisdictions, including medical negligence, workplace accidents, motor vehicle accidents and general civil liability claims.

Rutland v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1583 - Judicial review of decision under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) by Medical Assessment Service review panel, failure to exercise statutory function, failure to properly apply guidelines, failure to accord procedural fairness.

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Rutland [2015] NSWCA 328 – Judicial review of decision under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) by Medical Assessment Service review panel, statutory task of review panel under s 63(3A), whether review panel failed to comply with legal obligations, whether denial of procedural fairness.

Samir Haris v AAI Limited [2015] NSWSC 270 - Judicial review of decision under Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) by Medical Assessment Service review panel, whether incorrect test of causation applied - whether procedural fairness denied.

Rossiter v Core Mining Limited [2014] NSWSC 969 - Application to take evidence by audiovisual link in respect of underlying substantive matter relating to substantial contractual dispute as to certain vesting and related entitlements. Ty was briefed in the substantive claim with the matter resolving during course of litigation.

PACANOWSKI & ORS V WAKERMAN & ORS – Claim relating to defective architectural design of substantial home, involving multiple issues as to purported negligent conduct on behalf of multiple parties, contractual dispute as to terms of retainer, privity of contract.