Plaintiff’s Duty to Mitigate Loss: Understanding the Implications

Dec 21, 2023 | Publication

In the realm of legal disputes, the principle that plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate their losses holds paramount importance.

The fundamental premise is clear: if a plaintiff’s inaction or unreasonable action leads to avoidable loss, the compensation awarded may be adjusted accordingly. In simpler terms, if a plaintiff fails to take appropriate steps to mitigate their damages, the court may assess their compensation based on the assumption that these mitigative measures were taken.

However, determining what constitutes “unreasonable” action or inaction is not always straightforward. A pivotal case, ECS Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hobby [2014] NSWCA 193, offers valuable insights into this aspect. The court, in this instance, drew from the established test in Fazlic v Milingimbi Community Inc [1982] HCA 3, which mandates that the reasonableness of a refusal to seek treatment hinges on the plaintiff’s state of knowledge at the pertinent time.

This means that the plaintiff’s previous experiences, coupled with the specifics of the treatment they declined, play a crucial role in determining the reasonableness of their decision. For instance, if a plaintiff had valid reasons, based on past experiences or medical advice, to forego a particular treatment, their refusal may not be deemed unreasonable.

In conclusion, while plaintiffs have the right to seek compensation for their losses, they are concurrently entrusted with the responsibility to act reasonably in minimising these losses. As the legal landscape evolves, it remains essential for plaintiffs and their representatives to be well-versed in the intricacies of the duty to mitigate, ensuring that justice is served equitably and effectively.

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...

When should a business take legal action on an overdue account?

Generally speaking, an overdue account should be acted on promptly.  The longer it is left, the greater the likelihood the account will need to be written off. Unless the debtor has a satisfactory reason for delaying payment, the account should be followed...

Court Rules Against Kmart in Personal Injury Appeal

In a recent case, Kmart has been held liable for injuries sustained by a customer in its Woy Woy store, after a mountain bike in a heavy, oversized box fell from another customer's shopping trolley, injuring Ms Rita Marmara. The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld...

Can a Shareholder claim against a Company?

A shareholder can claim against a company under some circumstances. Shareholders have specific rights and interests in a company, and there are scenarios where they might have grounds to make a claim. Some common situations include: Breach of Shareholder Agreement: If...

Court of Appeal Clarifies GP’s Duty of Care in Varipatis v Almario

In a landmark decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the appeal of a general practitioner (GP) who was previously found negligent for not referring a morbidly obese patient for bariatric surgery. The case, Varipatis v Almario [2013] NSWCA 76, provides...