Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 172

Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd v Leslight (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 172

The Court found that the parties made a cost-plus agreement on 20 March 2012 under which Geneville was engaged for the project, with a 15% profit component and progress claims payable within seven days, but the agreement was unenforceable by Geneville under s 10 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) because it was not a written residential building contract satisfying s 7. Geneville was nevertheless entitled to recover on a quantum meruit because Mr Leslight received and accepted the benefit of the work and it would be unconscionable for him to retain that benefit without payment. The defendant's cross-claim failed because the alleged defects, over-excavation, unnecessary works and delays...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Building and Construction Proceedings Involving a Claim for Payment Under an Alleged Contract or Alternatively Quantum Meruit, and a Cross Claim for Alleged Defects, Delay and Other Losses / Principal Judgment After Trial and Adoption of Referee Report
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim proceedings; the Cross-Claim is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['absence of Formal Written Residential Building Contract' 'home Building Act 1989 (nsw) Ss 7 and 10' 'cost Plus Building Arrangement' 'unenforceable Residential Building Contract' 'quantum Meruit for Building Work' 'delay and Defects Cross Claim' 'referee Report Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005' 'witness Credibility']
['building and Construction' 'contract Law' 'restitution / Quantum Meruit' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['absence of Formal Written Residential Building Contract' 'home Building Act 1989 (nsw) Ss 7 and 10' 'cost Plus Building Arrangement' 'unenforceable Residential Building Contract' 'quantum Meruit for Building Work' 'delay and Defects Cross Claim' 'referee Report Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005' 'witness Credibility']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Building and Construction Proceedings Involving a Claim for Payment Under an Alleged Contract or Alternatively Quantum Meruit, and a Cross Claim for Alleged Defects, Delay and Other Losses / Principal Judgment After Trial and Adoption of Referee Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What agreement was made between Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd and Brett Barry Leslight and what were its terms' 'Whether the agreement was enforceable given ss 7 and 10 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)' 'Whether Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd was entitled to recover the value of work on a quantum meruit basis if the contract was unenforceable' 'Whether the defendant established his cross-claim for alleged unnecessary works, defective works, over-excavation, poor workmanship and delay losses' 'Whether alleged delay losses were caused by Geneville Constructions Pty Ltd and were recoverable']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the parties made a cost-plus agreement on 20 March 2012 under which Geneville was engaged for the project, with a 15% profit component and progress claims payable within seven days, but the agreement was unenforceable by Geneville under s 10 of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW) because it was not a written residential building contract satisfying s 7. Geneville was nevertheless entitled to recover on a quantum meruit because Mr Leslight received and accepted the benefit of the work and it would be unconscionable for him to retain that benefit without payment. The defendant's cross-claim failed because the alleged defects, over-excavation, unnecessary works and delays...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim proceedings; the Cross-Claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the Statement of Claim proceedings.' 'The Cross-Claim is dismissed;' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed;" 'Liberty to the parties to apply within 21 days for a variation of the order in (3) above;' 'The parties are to bring in...