Where a plaintiff has retained earning capacity but declines to exercise it at a remote location, the trial judge must address the question of mitigation and determine whether the refusal was unreasonable, with the burden of proof on the defendant. The rate for clerical work in Perth (excluding remote location allowances) is the appropriate comparator where the defendant fails to discharge the burden of proving it was unreasonable to refuse remote employment. An appellate court may reassess damages itself where the trial judge has made detailed findings of primary fact and the remaining question is one of ultimate and objective fact.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 34 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 34 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.