The facts as set out at the beginning of Edelman's judgment seem to show that this was the least meritorious plaintiff since Rondel of Rondel v Worsley notoriety (or is that too long ago for most to remember?). Of course, we are looking for principles and hard cases do make bad law. But if there was a chance that he would not have been detained, he would have been entitled to the value of that chance, notwithstanding Gageler's apparent view that the hypothetical counterfactual need be established only on a balance of probabilities and then it's taken as certain. In this case the parties accepted that it was certain. Compare Berry v CCL   http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2020/HCA/27. Despite the reservation as to the onus of proof, this last case shows that the chance of not terminating the contract lawfully, as the defendants could have, was very valuable to this plaintiff.