How much does one truly deserve?

A critical analysis of the New Zealand and Australian High Courts' approach to quantum meruit claims within the construction industry

The Australian High Court case of Mann v Paterson Construction Pty Ltd and the New Zealand High Court case of Electrix Limited v The Fletcher Construction Company Limited both involved claims of non-contractual quantum meruit by contractors seeking compensation for services performed.  The judgments, which were issued one closely following the other, show the different ways the law of restitution has been understood and developed under Australian and New Zealand law. 

This essay makes the comment that:

  • In light of the Construction Contracts Act 2002, the New Zealand Court’s interpretation of quantum meruit as a mechanism to restore the plaintiff’s position rather than being exclusively tethered to unjust enrichment is the correct approach. 
  • Where there was an enforceable contract to begin with, the contract price should act as a cap on amounts recoverable in a quantum meruit claim. 
  • Conversely, where there was no enforceable contract to begin with, the amount recoverable should have regard to the project specific costs to ensure that a reasonable compensation is made to the plaintiff.  

To read Katie’s submission essay to the New Zealand Society of Construction Law Essay Prize 2021, please click here.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

The Impact of Unclear Communication
The recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Valmont Interiors Pty Ltd v Giorgio Armani Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2021] NSWCA 9 is an example of an unclear direction resulting in a principal being unable to rely on a notification time bar in a construction contract.
11.10.2021 Posted in Construction
Penalties imposed for a single phone call attempting to enter a price-fixing agreement
The High Court in Commerce Commission v Specialised Container Services (Christchurch) Ltd recently imposed pecuniary penalties under the Commerce Act 1986 (the Act) for an attempt to enter into a pric...
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & Regulatory
Update – August/September 2021 Lockdown – what financial support is available?
The Government is offering various support schemes to help employees and businesses cope with the 2021 COVID-19 Lockdown.  Given the differing eligibility requirements it is easy to become overwhelmed.
07.10.2021 Posted in Business Advice & COVID-19 & Employment
Exclusion of liability for deliberate breaches of contract 
In Mott Macdonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd [2021] EWHC 754 (TCC) the English High Court considered a summary judgment application on the applicability of a limitation of liability clause to an alle...
How low can you go?  Commerce Commission’s prosecution against Bunnings dismissed
The District Court recently dismissed the Commerce Commission’s case against Bunnings for alleged misleading and deceptive representations under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). In dismissing the Co...
Civil Aviation Bill introduced to Parliament
After five years of preparation, the Civil Aviation Bill has been introduced to Parliament.  The aviation industry has seen dramatic change in the three decades since the current Civil Aviation Act w...
30.09.2021 Posted in Aviation
Regulators do not “bend” on AML/CFT compliance: Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium Limited
Earlier this month, the High Court released its decision in Financial Markets Authority v CLSA Premium New Zealand Limited.
23.09.2021 Posted in AML/CFT & Business Advice & Regulatory
Send us an enquiry
For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.