Daniel Bernard Bryant v Defence Housing Authority - [2002] ACTSC 43

DANIEL BERNARD BRYANT v DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY
[2002] ACTSC 43 (24 May 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CONTRACT – breach of contract of employment – whether contract for a specified task or for a specified term – early termination by employer – operation of Public Service Act 1999 and Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – measure of damages – mitigation of loss – onus of proof.

Public Service Act 1999, ss 22, 24, 29

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), s 170

Defence Housing Authority Act 1987, ss 11, 57

National Gallery of Australia v Douglas [1999] ACTSC 79

Suttling v Department of Education [1985] 3 NSWLR 427

Director General of Education v Suttling (1987) 162 CLR 427

No. SC 715 of 2001

Judge: Miles CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 24 May 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )              No. SC 715 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:DANIEL BERNARD BRYANT
Plaintiff

AND:DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Miles CJ
Date:  24 May 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

This is an action for damages for breach of contract by wrongful termination.

PLEADINGS

By statement of claim annexed to originating application dated 29 October 2001 the plaintiff alleged that on 24 August 2000 he commenced employment with the defendant pursuant to contract for a fixed or specified term commencing on 24 August 2000 and expiring on 31 August 2003, alternatively for the duration of a specified task. The plaintiff further alleged that the contract was terminated by notice prior to the expiry of the term or alternatively prior to the completion of the specified task.

By its defence dated 17 December 2001 the defendant admitted the employment pursuant to contract for the duration of a specified task and the termination alleged. The defendant raised the following matters by way of defence:

·The termination was made when the task had come to an end by force of the contract and by operation of s 24 of the Public Service Act 1999.
·The plaintiff was estopped from bringing the action by cl 5.6 of the Workplace Agreement which was part of the contract. (This defence was abandoned at the hearing.)
·The plaintiff had elected to commence proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to s 170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Workplace Relations Act) and was bound by such election.

The defendant also relied or purported to rely on a counter-claim for an order that the proceedings be struck out as an abuse of process.

The plaintiff did not file a reply or a defence to the alleged counter-claim.

The plaintiff alleged that the contract was constituted by a letter from the defendant dated 21 August 2000. The defendant alleged that a draft Workplace Relations Agreement (AWA) which was amended to the letter was also part of the contract. During the trial the plaintiff accepted the position taken by the defendant on this aspect.

By a somewhat unorthodox sequence of events the proceedings…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Daniel Bernard Bryant v Defence Housing Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] ACTSC 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Daniel Bernard Bryant, the plaintiff, brought a case against the Defence Housing Authority, the defendant, for damages resulting from the wrongful termination of his employment contract. The dispute centres around the termination of the plaintiff's employment, which he claims was done without proper justification and in breach of the contractual agreement. The court was required to decide whether the contract was for a specified task or for a specified term, and whether the termination complied with the contract's terms and relevant statutes.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory examined the nature of the contract, whether it was for the duration of a specified task or for a specified term. The court concluded that the contract was for the duration of a specified task, namely the management of national assets, which had not been completed at the time of termination. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the task had ended, finding instead that the task remained ongoing and was merely reassigned to other employees. The court found that the termination constituted a breach of contract and the plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Regarding damages, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to remain employed until the specified task was completed. The plaintiff bore the onus to demonstrate that the task was not completed or was unlikely to be completed within the contract period. The court found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate his loss by seeking alternative employment and engaging in consultancy work. However, the court held that the plaintiff could reasonably expect to earn at least two-thirds of what he would have earned had the contract been fulfilled until its expiry in August 2003. The court calculated the damages based on this assessment, awarding the plaintiff a total of approximately $126,896.

The court also addressed the defendant's argument that it should be credited for the plaintiff's potential earnings from consultancy work and business activities. The court found that the defendant had not demonstrated that the plaintiff's efforts to mitigate his loss were unreasonable. The court deferred giving leave to enter final judgment to allow for further submissions on the arithmetic of the damages calculation.

Orders