Mitigation of loss
Lawyers often refer to the claimant's duty to mitigate their loss. To talk about duty is probably adopting too high a standard of conduct; it is probably more helpful to consider mitigation in terms of reasonableness.
In Sotiros Shipping Inc. and Another v Sameiet Solholt (1983), it was suggested that 'A plaintiff was under no duty to mitigate his loss, despite the habitual use by lawyers of the phrase "duty to mitigate". He was completely free to act as he judged to be in his best interest. On the other hand, a defendant was not liable for all the loss suffered by the plaintiff in consequence of his so acting. A defendant was only liable for such part of the plaintiffs loss as was properly to be regarded as caused by the defendant's breach of duty.’
Essentially therefore a claimant will not be allowed to recover damage which could have been avoided had the claimant acted reasonably. The burden of proof rests on the defendants to show that the claimant behaved unreasonably. The level of behaviour is one to be decided on the facts of each particular case although as a general rule the courts tend to favour the claimant and are often unimpressed with defendants' attempts to demonstrate that, with the benefit of hindsight, the claimant's behaviour was unreasonable. For example, the courts do not expect a claimant to do anything other than that which is in the ordinary course of a business (see Dunkirk Colliery Co v. Lever).
If a claimant's reasonable attempts to mitigate the loss fail and result in additional loss or damage, such losses or damage may be recoverable from the defendant (see Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow & Sons Ltd). However, if the claimant takes greater steps than they need have done and these result in a reduction of the loss and damage, then the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that reduction.
Mitigation is often described as the mirror image of the rules of remoteness and also the rules of assessment. That is to say the courts often disregard strict application of the rules and are more concerned to answer what has been described as the real question, namely what is the loss to the claimant. In the end the question seems to come down to a very short point. The cost is a loss if it is shown to be a loss', per Megarry VC in Tito and Others v Waddell and Others (1977) (The Ocean Island case).
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
How to revolutionise UK housing with MMC
CIC and Supply Chain Sustainability School unveil a plan.
From the UKs largest manufacturer and supplier of lime.
From mud bricks to smart concrete
A brief history from 7000BC to a future on the moon.
Regulator of Social Housing publishes latest fire safety report
Covering remediation of 11 metre plus social housing sector buildings.
Apartment and Duplex Defects Remediation Bill 2024
Approved for priority drafting by Government of Ireland.
The long list with in the frame of key historical events.
Competence frameworks for sustainability in the built environment
Code of practice, core criteria consultation draft for comment.
UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard Sept update
Pilot version for testing and feedback on its adoption due.
New Floods Resilience Taskforce
With a wet met office autumn prediction.
National Retrofit Hub takeover of Net Zero stage
At Birmingham UK Construction Week in October.
AT Awards 2024 finalists announced
With more to come, prior to the Awards ceremony in October.
London construction cools as hotspots appear nationally
Increases in the East of England, Yorkshire and Scotland.
ARB proposals for a new Architects Code
Announced in the shadow of the final Grenfell Inquiry report.
Combining human creativity and tech innovation now and in the future
Building automation and control systems market study
BSRIA 2024 North America BACS software & services.
Impact of digital technology on productivity in construction
New CIOB academy guidance for companies of all sizes.