Home | © 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Odd lot

AFS Catering P/L v Stonehill [2005] NSWCA 183. McColl JA, Giles & Ipp JJA agreeing. 30.05.05.

Later, McColl JA said: "In dealing with the challenge to the award for future economic loss it is important to appreciate the significance of the primary judge's conclusion that, by virtue of her age, her experience and qualifications, the respondent's physical limitations "put her in the category of 'odd lot' so far as employment is concerned".

"The expression 'odd lot' refers to the work capacity of someone who is so impaired that the person is 'only able to do certain very special jobs, depending on finding a very special employer who, either through compassion or because he has a special job, is able to give him employment, but any ordinary class of work he is not able to do': Foster v Wharncliffe Woodmoor Colliery Co Ltd [1922] 2 KB 701 at 715 per Scrutton LJ, explaining the references to odd lot in Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] 1 KB 1009.

"The 'odd lot' doctrine applies to claims for workers compensation 'where the residual capacity to work of a particular claimant has been treated as so confined that, in reality, there is total incapacity for work': see Hill v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 832; (2004) 207 ALR 470 at [50] per Mansfield J; see also Bavcevic v The Commonwealth [1957] HCA 67; [1957] 98 CLR 296Fletcher v Douglas [1934] WCR (NSW) 88."

Previous page: Occupier's liability     Next page: Oral hearing in Workers Compensation Commission

© 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample