Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No. 3) [2012] NSWSC 1280

Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No. 3) [2012] NSWSC 1280

The Plaintiff's judgment was not less favourable than the First Defendant's offer because the proper comparison under r 42.15 UCPR was the Plaintiff's net position after the workers compensation indemnity, leaving $142,571.54 under the judgment rather than $78,988 if the offer had been accepted. Rule 42.34 did not deny costs because the seriousness and potential effect of the alleged injuries, and the absence of opposition to transfer, made the transfer to and continuation in the Supreme Court warranted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination Following Principal and Supplementary Judgments in Common Law Proceedings / Final Costs and Orders
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant; judgment entered for the Second Defendant; judgment entered for the Second Defendant on the cross-claim; costs ordered.
Legal Topics
['offer of Compromise' 'whether Judgment Was Not Less Favourable Than Offer' 'workers Compensation Indemnity' 'supreme Court Costs Where Judgment Less Than $500, 000' 'ucpr R 42.15' 'ucpr R 42.34']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'workers Compensation'] ['offer of Compromise' 'whether Judgment Was Not Less Favourable Than Offer' 'workers Compensation Indemnity' 'supreme Court Costs Where Judgment Less Than $500,000' 'ucpr R 42.15' 'ucpr R 42.34']

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

Costs Determination Following Principal and Supplementary Judgments in Common Law Proceedings / Final Costs and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Plaintiff obtained an order or judgment on the claim not less favourable than the First Defendant's offer of compromise." "Whether the Notice of Offer of Compromise complied with the Rules by referring to payment of the Plaintiff's costs." 'Whether r 42.34 UCPR operated to deny the Plaintiff costs because the proceedings were in the Supreme Court and judgment was less than $500,000.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's judgment was not less favourable than the First Defendant's offer because the proper comparison under r 42.15 UCPR was the Plaintiff's net position after the workers compensation indemnity, leaving $142,571.54 under the judgment rather than $78,988 if the offer had been accepted. Rule 42.34 did not deny costs because the seriousness and potential effect of the alleged injuries, and the absence of opposition to transfer, made the transfer to and continuation in the Supreme Court warranted.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant; judgment entered for the Second Defendant; judgment entered for the Second Defendant on the cross-claim; costs ordered.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff against the First Defendant in the sum of $232,315.80.' "The First Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs on a party/party basis as agreed or assessed." 'Judgment for the Second Defendant.' "The Plaintiff pay the Second Defendant's costs as agreed or assessed in accordance with the Workers...