Decision of The High Court Assesment Analysis

Running head: CASE STUDY 1
REMEDIES REPARATIONS
STUDENT DETAILS:
12/28/2019

CASE STUDY 2
Peter Mann v Paterson Constructions [2019] HCA 32
Introduction
The latest decision of the High court in the famous case of Peter Mann v Paterson
Constructions [2019] HCA 32 considers the significant improvement in common law regarding
repudiation of buildings contract as well as quantum meruit. By considering this famous case, the
high court has constricted the extent for the quantum meruit in which the building contract is
ended by the engineer’s approval of the repudiation of the possessor. In the following parts, the
facts of case, litigation history of case, reasoning of the decision as well as policy consideration.
This report also states the significance of the case.
Facts
Angela Mann as well as Peter is the owners. They made a contract with Paterson Constructions
Pty Ltd who is builder. They made a contract to make 2 double storey residential properties on
the properties of the owner in Blackburn (Victoria) in consideration of fixed amount of 971,000
dollars. The builder made delay in the construction work. Due to this delay, the owners of the
properties claimed to end the contract. The owners also refused the engineer to come into the
property. Consecutively, it was declared by the builder that the termination of the contract by the
builder as well as denial to permit the engineer in the property subjected to the repudiation1.
Further, the engineer made the claim at VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal)
against the Peter and Angela Mann looking for relief, and was provided damage amounted
660526.41 dollars. The basis of this claim is that that this amount represents the appropriate
along with fairer values of the work executed, in place of the contractual amount. Angela Mann
1 Jennie Poole. Casebook on Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 2016)

CASE STUDY 3
as well as Peter (owners) made an application to the Supreme Court (Victoria). The Supreme
Court of Victoria primarily rejected the application save for improvement of the small numerical
mistake in the quantum. Moreover, the owners also made the appeal to Court of Appeal. The
Court of Appeal also rejected the application on the basis of facts made in the popular case of
Sopov v Kane2. After the rejection by the Court of Appeal, Peter and Angele Mann made an
appeal to the Australian High Court. They made application on the basis of various mistakes
such as-
 the engineer was authorized to take legal action on the quantum meruit for the functions
performed by this
 Subsequently, in a case when the engineer was authorized to take legal action on the
quantum meruit, then the contractual amount did not work as the upper limit upon the
amount that can be claimed as per the quantum meruit claims3.
 The provisions of the Domestic Building Contract Act 1995 (section 38) didn’t applicable
to the quantum meruit claims for the variation to work as per the DBC Act.
Litigation history
The litigation history of the given case is discussed as follows-
 VCAT – Paterson Construction Pty Ltd v Mann [2016] VCAT 2100 - Paterson required
the relief as per the grounds of quantum meruit or, on the other hand, for sum supposedly
be obliged in a contract. As per the facts given in the case of Sopov v Kane4, it was found
by Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal that quantum meruit was presented to the
2 (2009) 24 VR 510
3 Neil Andrews, Contract Law (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2015)
4 (2009) 24 VR 510

CASE STUDY 4
service provider and considered the expert evidence of quantity surveyor of service
provider. As per this, 660526.41dollars is required to be paid by Manns as per forty-two
variations.
 Supreme Court- Mann v Paterson Construction Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 119 – Cavanough
J asserted the decision of Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal, considering that
quantum meruit has been established part of the law of Australia for above the century,
that the remedies assume the judicial fiction of contract being void ab initio as well as
specific leaves to make application to the High Court on the point had been denied. It was
held that the contractual price was allowable. However, it was not a compulsory
consideration in evaluating the quantum meruit and did not render the ceiling to the
recovery.
 Court of Appeal - Mann V Paterson Construction Pty Ltd [2018] VSCA 231- The
Court of Appeal stated that accessibility of quantum meruit had been the matter of
important criticism on a base that it has no regard to accrued right. It is also considered
by the court that the Court of Appeal was restricted to adopt current precedent.
 High Court- The court generally denied a ratio of foundational decision in case of the
Lodder v Slowey5 as the recission fallacy.
5 (1900) 20 NZLR 321

CASE STUDY 5
Reasoning of the decision
In three different decisions, the High Court of Australia permitted the application. The High
Court of Australia forwarded the case to Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal (VCAT)
for additional consideration as per the law6. The legal condition that takes place from the dispute
is discussed below-
 The work for which the rights to make compensation has ensued- in respect of the
work regarding which the rights to the progress amount has became payable on or prior
to the period of termination (whole levels or objectives), it was held by the High court
that the builder was authorized to relief by a manner of common law actions in the debts
for amount owing in the contract, or compensations for the violation of the conditions of
the contract. The court also provided that the compensation will not work to render the
engineer relief in these situations for the reason that the engineer had the enforceable
rights for the recovery as per a contract. In addition, the compensation will be allowed
according to the intention of the contracting persons as well as the ground of contract7.
 The work for which the rights to make compensation has not yet ensued- in relation
to the work regarding which the right to progress amount has not yet became payable
(partial levels), it was held by the High Court unanimously that the engineer can recover
the compensation for the violation of the conditions of contract. Even though, the most of
the judges such as Nettle, Gordon, Gageler as well as Edelman J held that in relation to
the regarding which the right to progress amount has not yet became payable (incomplete
6 Peter Latimer, Australian Business Law 2012 (CCH Australia Limited, 31st ed., 2012)
7 Reo Miller and Gennie Jent, Business Law Today: The Essentials (Thompson Advantage Books, 8th ed,
2007)

CASE STUDY 6
stages), the engineer was also authorized, as per the option, to make recovery of the
payment of partial levels on the restitutionary basis on the claim of quantum meruit. In a
case when the engineer selected the recovery through the restitution, then it was
considered by majority that the recoverable amount upon the restitutionary basis are
required to be restricted by a rate prescribed by a contract for reflecting the decided good
deal as well as risk distribution amid the contracting persons8.
 Provisions of section 38 of the Domestic Building Contract Act 1995 (DBC Act 1995)
to variation- the section 38 of the Domestic Building Contract Act 1995 (DBC Act
1995) averts the engineer by making claim ‘any money’ for variation demanded by the
possessor unless a requirement of this section 38 are assured, or if not assured then
Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal performs the discretion in subsection 6(b).
The Court of Appeal barely interpreted sec. 38 of the Domestic Building Contract Act
19959 to implement to the claim in the contract only as well as not claim in restitution.
Generally, the High Court changed the decision of the Court of Appeal in providing that
the section 38 of the Domestic Building Contract Act 1995 10stopped the engineer by
recovering the payment in compensation for the variation applied or else according to this
section.
Policy consideration
8 Emie Macdonald, and Ronald Atkins, Koffman& Macdonald's Law of Contract (Oxford University Press,
8th ed, 2014)
9 The Domestic Building Contract Act 1995
10 The Domestic Building Contract Act 1995

CASE STUDY 7
The decision made by high court is of importance for a construction sector as this ends the
capability of the builder as well as contractor to look for claims based on the quantum meruit or
compensation following termination wherever the levels of function have been made as well as
rights have place in the contract. It can say that the judgment states the fair result in deciding the
recovery’s right in keeping the contracting persons the bargain wherever the right has increased.
When the contract is ended on the grounds of repudiation the recovery of damage in excess of
prices of contract is nowadays confined. Before the judgment, quantum meruit grounds of
recovery will resolve the issue of the losses generating contract for the service provider in which
the contract was ended. As a result, the contractor as well as builder would presently require to
vigilantly considering which types of the recovery rights are presented in considering whether to
end the contract11.
Significance of the case
After various periods of the commentary on the significance of the contractor having the chances
to elect to look for the damages of contract or the quantum meruit adopting execution for
repudiation, the High Court has rendered welcomed transparency. It can say that the judgment of
this case dispenses with a fear of the quantum meruit claims in relation to the work executed as
per the construction contract for which the rights to the payment have previously initiated, as
well as limits the accessibility of the remedies such that the improvement would be hold back by
the term of appropriate contract for the construction of building. The main point to be noted is
that Gordon, Nettle as well as Edelman JJ considered different exceptions to rules, even though
this opinion was not viewed by Gageler. In this way, the minority as well as the majority was not
11 Andrew Gibson and Denial Fraser, Business Law 2014 (Pearson Australia, 2014)

CASE STUDY 8
agreed over the relative benefits of the selected remedy, all making claim that the quantum
meruit along with the contract related claims for the losses of bargain evaluated positively with
others in relation to the easiness of creating the related claims. The legal disagreement states the
unremitting significance of the selection to be performed by the blameless contracting person as
to which remedies to follow, taking consideration of the logical benefits, which implement to the
different situations12.
Conclusion
As per the above analysis, it can be concluded that in the welcomed decision for the principal
involving contractor for the work of constructing building, the high court has restricted the
accessibility of restitutionary remedies for the quantum meruit in which the contractor is elected
to end the contract as the consequences of repudiation. In affirming the dominance of bargain
struck between contracting persons, the high court stated that commercial assurance is at a heart
of contract regulated by common law of Australia.
12 The Contract law

CASE STUDY 9
Bibliography
A. Articles/ Books/ Reports
Andrews, N, Contract Law (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2015)
Gibson, A, and Fraser, D, Business Law 2014 (Pearson Australia, 2014)
Latimer, P, Australian Business Law 2012 (CCH Australia Limited, 31st ed., 2012)
Macdonald, E, and Atkins, R, Koffman& Macdonald's Law of Contract (Oxford University
Press, 8th ed, 2014)
Miller, R, and Jentz, G, Business Law Today: The Essentials (Thompson Advantage Books, 8th
ed, 2007)
Poole, J, Casebook on Contract Law (Oxford University Press, 2016)
B. Cases
Lodder v Slowey (1900) 20 NZLR 321
Sopov v Kane (2009) 24 VR 510
C. Legislations
The Contract Law
The Domestic Building Contract Act 1995

CASE STUDY 10