Cressy v Miloriad (No 2)

[2016] ACTSC 339

Supreme Court of the ACT23 November 2016

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Motor vehicle accident
4. › Interest on damages
5. › Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages
6. › Whether interest awardable on past gratuitous care damages
7. › Whether such damages are 'liabilities incurred that do not carry interest'
8. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1619(2)(a)
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Interest on damages
4. › Rate of interest
5. › Where Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages assessed at current day rates
6. › Gogic rate of 4% applicable to reflect loss of use of money
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Interest on damages
4. › Restriction on interest after settlement offer
5. › Meaning of 'special circumstances'
6. › Whether change in expert opinion constituted special circumstances
7. › Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1619(7), (8)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Calderbank offer
4. › Whether failure to accept offer unreasonable
5. › Distinction between reasonable offer and unreasonable rejection

Quick Take

In the ACT, r 1619(2)(a) of the CPR does not preclude the award of interest on Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages because such damages are not 'liabilities' within the meaning of the provision. Where Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damages are assessed at current day rates, interest should be awarded at the Gogic rate of 4% to compensate for loss of use of money. Evidentiary imprecision common in personal injury cases, including refinement of expert opinion between report and oral evidence, does not constitute 'special circumstances' under r 1619(7) justifying the award of interest after an appropriate settlement offer.