Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560
The Manns engaged Paterson Constructions to build two townhouses under a domestic building contract governed by the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic). Disputes arose during construction and the Manns repudiated the contract, which Paterson accepted. Paterson then claimed a quantum meruit for work done on the second townhouse in an amount exceeding the contract price.
1. Whether a builder who has accepted the other party's repudiation of a contract may recover a quantum meruit for work done that exceeds the contract price. 2. Whether the law of unjust enrichment or restitution provides an independent basis for recovery beyond the contractual ceiling in such circumstances.
The High Court held, by majority, that where a valid and enforceable contract has been repudiated and the innocent party has elected to terminate, any quantum meruit claim for work done under the contract is capped at the contract rate or price; the innocent party cannot use restitution to escape the bargain and obtain more than the contract provided.
Where work has been performed under a valid and subsisting contract that is subsequently terminated for repudiation, a quantum meruit claim by the innocent party for that work is limited by the contract price; an accrued contractual right to payment fixes the ceiling of recovery, and the law of unjust enrichment does not operate to award the innocent party a sum greater than that to which the contract entitled it.
The majority expressed significant reservations about recognising an independent Australian law of unjust enrichment as a distinct doctrinal category capable of overriding or supplementing contractual obligations; Gageler J and Gordon J each wrote separately to caution against uncritical reception of English unjust enrichment theory into Australian law. The plurality also noted that the position may differ where the contract is void, unenforceable, or does not address the particular work in question.
Mann v Paterson Constructions is the leading Australian authority on the relationship between restitutionary quantum meruit and subsisting contractual obligations, confirming that an enforceable contract caps any quantum meruit recovery and thereby restraining the expansion of unjust enrichment as an autonomous body of law in Australia.
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2016) 258 CLR 525
Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) 240 CLR 45
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 210 CLR 181
Read the full judgment on AustLII. Brief written by caselaw editors using AGLC 4th ed.