Daniel Bernard Bryant v Defence Housing Authority

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.