Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No 3)

The case of Milich v The Council of the City of Canterbury (No 3) involved a dispute between the Plaintiff, Mr Milich, and the Defendant, the Council of the City of Canterbury. The Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the Defendant. The proceedings were initially conducted in the Supreme Court, but the Defendant sought to transfer the case to the County Court. The Plaintiff opposed the transfer, arguing that the case involved complex issues that warranted being heard in the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Plaintiff had obtained a judgment that was not less favourable than an offer of compromise made by the Defendant. The Defendant had made an offer without deducting the costs of workers compensation indemnity, which was a significant factor in the Plaintiff's acceptance of the offer. The court was required to determine the meaning of "less favourable" in the context of Rule 42.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and whether the Plaintiff's net position should be taken into account. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the Plaintiff's commencement and continuation of the proceedings in the Supreme Court was warranted under Rule 42.34.

The court held that in determining whether a judgment was not less favourable than an offer, it was necessary to consider the Plaintiff's net position after accounting for the costs of workers compensation indemnity. The court found that the Plaintiff had indeed obtained a judgment that was not less favourable than the Defendant's offer. Consequently, the court ruled that the costs of the workers compensation indemnity were not to be ordered. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's decision to commence and continue the proceedings in the Supreme Court was justified given the complexity of the issues and the amount of the judgment, which was less than $500,000.

The final orders of the court were that the Plaintiff was not to be ordered to pay the costs of the workers compensation indemnity, and the Plaintiff's decision to commence and continue the proceedings in the Supreme Court was upheld. The Defendant's application to transfer the case to the County Court was dismissed.