Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 450

Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 450

Employer is entitled to indemnity under s 151Z(1)(d) Workers Compensation Act 1987 notwithstanding being sued and found negligent, with indemnity components (lump sum, pain and suffering, weekly payments, treatment expenses) to be included or apportioned according to findings on impairment and causation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Separate Question / Post Liability, Quantification and Indemnity Determination
Outcome
The parties should bring in Short Minutes to give effect to the reasons.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'work Injury' 'indemnity Under S 151 Z' 'apportionment of Compensation' 'double Compensation']
['torts' 'workers Compensation'] ['negligence' 'work Injury' 'indemnity Under S 151 Z' 'apportionment of Compensation' 'double Compensation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Separate Question / Post Liability, Quantification and Indemnity Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether employer is entitled to indemnity under s 151Z(1)(d) Workers Compensation Act 1987 when sued by the worker' 'What compensation components are recoverable under the indemnity and how they should be apportioned']

Ratio Decidendi

Employer is entitled to indemnity under s 151Z(1)(d) Workers Compensation Act 1987 notwithstanding being sued and found negligent, with indemnity components (lump sum, pain and suffering, weekly payments, treatment expenses) to be included or apportioned according to findings on impairment and causation.

Court Disposition

The parties should bring in Short Minutes to give effect to the reasons.

Orders

  • []