The [name withheld] v [name withheld] approach of assessing retained earning capacity as a percentage of pre-accident earning capacity is not appropriate where there is substantial evidence of the availability of employment within the plaintiff's residual capacity and the average amounts which could be earned in such employment. Where such evidence exists, the court should assess loss by reference to the difference between pre-accident and post-accident earning capacity. Profits from a systematic course of purchasing, renovating and reselling residential properties are taxable as ordinary income under s 6.5 of the ITAA 1997, not as capital gains, even where properties are held for more than 12 months.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.