18 October 2019
The High Court’s recent decision in Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd  HCA 32 (Mann v Paterson) has brought clarity to an area that has often been described as controversial: the ability to elect to seek a quantum meruit for repudiation of a building contract.
Clarity from the High Court comes in two ways:
In the case, the High Court also found that the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) (DBC Act) applied and provided for the full scope of variation works performed, thereby negating the recovery of a quantum meruit for that work.
The decision means that builders and construction contractors must pay close attention to their contracts (both in terms of negotiation and contract administration) as it will now be more difficult for them to avoid onerous contractual mechanisms (such as time bars and caps) by seeking a quantum meruit.
Quantum meruit is a legal doctrine which allows a contractor to claim restitution of a reasonable sum for work and/or services provided. The term quantum meruit translates to ‘what one has earned’ or, in practical terms, ‘what the job is worth’.
A restitutionary claim for quantum meruit can generally arise in the following circumstances:
In March 2014, Mr and Mrs Mann (Owners) entered into a major domestic building contract with Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (Builder) for the construction of two double storey town houses.
In April 2015, with one of the two townhouses completed, a dispute emerged regarding payment for variations that had been orally instructed by the Owners and implemented by the Builder. Following the Builder issuing an invoice for the outstanding variation costs, the Owners repudiated the contract and the Builder accepted that repudiation, thus terminating the contract.
The Builder brought a claim against the Owners in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), for damages for breach of contract or restitution for the work, labour and materials involved.
VCAT found the Builder was entitled to restitution on a quantum meruit basis for an amount reflecting the reasonable value of the work performed and the materials used. This amount was substantially more than the Builder would have been entitled to under the contract.
The Owners appealed to the High Court, after having earlier appeals to the Supreme Court of Victoria and Victorian Court of Appeal substantively dismissed.
Relevantly, the Owners raised three grounds:
Gageler J identified that the Court essentially had to determine the Builder’s remedial entitlement, following the termination of the contract by acceptance of the Owners’ repudiation, in relation to three categories of work performed:
Gageler J’s categorisation provides a convenient structure to consider the practical implications of the High Court’s decision.
The High Court unanimously held that the Builder’s remedy for stages of work completed prior to termination of the contract (i.e. where a right to payment had already accrued) was for the payment of the contractually agreed amounts due for completion of the relevant stages. Accordingly, the Builder could not elect to pursue a quantum meruit for completed portions of work.
How this reasoning will be applied in more complex contractual contexts is unclear, particularly where progress payments are assessed and paid on a provisional basis (i.e. when it is unclear whether a right to payment of a set amount has properly accrued).
The majority of the Court, comprised of Gageler J and Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ, held that the Builder was entitled to choose between damages or restitution for work that had not been completed prior to termination (i.e. where a right to payment of a specified amount had not accrued under the contract). However, any such amount calculated on a quantum meruit basis in relation to uncompleted stages of work should generally not exceed the contract price or the relevant portion of it.
Accordingly, where a contract does not specify stages of the work and corresponding amounts to be paid upon completion of those stages, a builder may be entitled to claim on a quantum meruit basis for the entirety of the works performed, albeit that the eventual assessment is likely to be constrained by the total contract price. The application of the High Court’s reasoning in Mann v Paterson to such circumstances is likely to provide fertile ground for further consideration by courts in the future.
The minority on this relatively narrow point, Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ, would have allowed the first ground of appeal and limited the Builder’s remedial rights in the present case to damages in contract. This made it unnecessary for the minority to specifically address the issue of whether the contract price acted as a cap on any recovery in restitution.
Ultimately, the majority chose not to directly address the controversy surrounding a party’s election between damages or restitution by closing off the ability to choose entirely. Rather, the Court’s decision significantly limits both the availability and scope of any quantum meruit following termination as a result of repudiation by:
The Court reasoned that this approach represents a more coherent application of remedies following termination of a contract and places due weight on the contract price(s) negotiated between the parties and the contractual allocation of risk that such consideration represents.
The Court unanimously held that s 38 of the DBC Act precluded the Builder from obtaining restitution for variations on a quantum meruit basis. The only right of recovery for that work was under s 38(6)(b) of the DBC Act as per the amounts prescribed by s 38(7).
The High Court’s construction of the DBC Act in Mann v Paterson significantly narrows the scope for recovery of variations to contractual works covered by that (and, likely, similar) legislation.
However, any application of the majority’s broader reasoning to variation work not covered by the DBC Act will likely need to be considered further in future cases.
Ultimately, the High Court remitted the matter back to VCAT to reconsider the quantum of the Builder’s entitlement by reference to:
While the election to pursue a claim in restitution may still be available in limited circumstances, a claim for quantum meruit will likely now be less appealing in the average case, as it is now significantly less likely to permit a party to recover an amount that is materially different from the amount(s) payable under the contract.
The reasoning of the Court in Mann v Paterson represents a significant step forward in providing greater certainty and coherence in the costs that may flow from the termination of a contract.
This publication is introductory in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should always obtain legal advice based on your specific circumstances before taking any action relating to matters covered by this publication. Some information may have been obtained from external sources, and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or currency of any such information.