Gageler CJ

12.

decidendi from the various reasons for judgment in that case. 42 The most that can
properly be said is that the explanation I have given can be seen to be concordant
with the core dispositive reasoning of Mason CJ and Dawson J.

29 Amann Aviation concerned an action by a private contractor against the

Commonwealth for damages for repudiation of a contract to provide aerial coastal
surveillance services for a specified period subject to the prospect of renewal and
to the possibility of early termination for cause.43 Without needing to prove that it
would have profited from the contract, the plaintiff was held to be entitled to
recover damages in the amount of the expenditure it had incurred in reliance on an
expectation of the Commonwealth performing the contract.44 The critical aspects
of the joint reasons for judgment of Mason CJ and Dawson J for the present
purposes are the following.

30 Mason CJ and Dawson J were clear in emphasising that the principle in

Robinson v Harman provides the framework for determining the category or
categories of compensable damage which a plaintiff might be found to have
sustained by reason of a defendant's non-performance of the contract and the
ultimate measure of compensatory damages to which a plaintiff might be found to
be entitled. So much is encompassed within the generality of their statement that
"the expressions 'expectation damages', 'damages for loss of profits', 'reliance
damages' and 'damages for wasted expenditure' are simply manifestations of the
central principle enunciated in Robinson v Harman rather than discrete and truly
alternative measures of damages which a party not in breach may elect to claim".45
That the principle sets a ceiling on compensatory damages was made clear by them
in emphasising that "[t]he corollary of the principle in Robinson v Harman is that
a plaintiff is not entitled, by the award of damages upon breach, to be placed in a
superior position to that which he or she would have been in had the contract been
performed".46 TC Industrial Plant was said by them to illustrate those
propositions.47

42 See Treitel, "Damages for Breach of Contract in the High Court of Australia" (1992)
108 Law Quarterly Review 226; Lücke, "The So-Called Reliance Interest in the High
Court" (1994) 6 Corporate & Business Law Journal 117.

43 (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 72-74.

44 (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 97-98, 115, 157-158.

45 (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 82.

46 (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 82.

47 (1991) 174 CLR 64 at 85.