The evidentiary burden on a defendant to adduce evidence of available alternative employment for an injured plaintiff is not a fixed rule of law that operates mechanistically. The court must assess lost earning capacity by reference to all the evidence, and the absence of defence evidence on alternative employment does not compel a finding that the plaintiff's earning capacity has been destroyed. Where a plaintiff's credibility is undermined by surveillance evidence, the court is not required to resolve uncertainties in the plaintiff's favour.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.