What happened
A worker injured while retrieving grocery stock in 2003 brought proceedings in 2019. Permission to proceed despite the delay was addressed separately. The substantive judgment concerned employer negligence, the worker's contributory negligence and economic loss.
The issues
The court examined hours, overtime, earnings records and future work capacity. Contributory negligence and uncertainty in future loss required separate adjustments.
No 3 addressed the form and substance of settlement offers, workers compensation repayments and pre-judgment interest.
The court's decision
No 2 assessed damages at $1,230,756.32, then reduced them by 7.5% for contributory negligence to $1,138,449.60. On 10 May 2021, No 3 separately ordered $245,372.92 in pre-judgment interest.
Understanding the figures
No 3 explained that deducting the $390,500.48 workers compensation repayment left $747,949.12 for comparison with the settlement offer. This figure was distinct from the separately ordered interest and was not the final amount remaining after legal costs.
A comparison with an offer therefore needs to account for repayments, costs and interest, rather than using the judgment total alone.
What this case shows
A settlement breakdown should make clear how the gross amount, compensation repayment, legal costs, disbursements and interest are treated. The offer and its calculation schedule can help identify the questions for a second opinion on existing advice.
Why another case may differ
This involved an old accident and separate permission to bring proceedings. Its contributory-negligence and interest findings do not establish entitlements in other cases. Both official judgments were checked on 8 November 2026, without an exhaustive later-history review. This is not presented as a Park & Co result.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →