Rahme Civil Pty Ltd v Zeater & Sons Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 161

Rahme Civil Pty Ltd v Zeater & Sons Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 161

Rahme Civil was not entitled to enforce the contract due to lack of licence, but was entitled to fair and reasonable value for work done (quantum meruit); negligence of its driver in damaging the facade was established but defendant entitled only to additional rectification cost of corner, not costs of complete replacement, as there was no causal link between the incident and full demolition/replacement. Set-off applied, leaving net sum due to plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Hearing of Claim and Cross Claim
Outcome
Partly in favour of plaintiff on claim, partly in favour of defendant on cross-claim, set-off applied; costs split.
Legal Topics
['building Contracts' 'security of Payments' 'quantum Meruit' 'negligence—property Damage' 'set Off' 'licensing Under Home Building Act']
['building and Construction Law' 'contract Law' 'torts (negligence)'] ['building Contracts' 'security of Payments' 'quantum Meruit' 'negligence—property Damage' 'set Off' 'licensing Under Home Building Act']

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 / Judgment After Hearing of Claim and Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff entitled to payment under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)' 'Whether plaintiff entitled to payment on quantum meruit for work performed under unenforceable contract due to lack of licence under Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)' 'Whether plaintiff/cross-defendant negligent in damaging defendant’s property' 'Whether defendant/cross-claimant entitled to damages for cost of rebuilding facade' 'Proper quantum of set-off between claims']

Ratio Decidendi

Rahme Civil was not entitled to enforce the contract due to lack of licence, but was entitled to fair and reasonable value for work done (quantum meruit); negligence of its driver in damaging the facade was established but defendant entitled only to additional rectification cost of corner, not costs of complete replacement, as there was no causal link between the incident and full demolition/replacement. Set-off applied, leaving net sum due to plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Partly in favour of plaintiff on claim, partly in favour of defendant on cross-claim, set-off applied; costs split.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for plaintiff against defendant on the claim in the amount of $31,662.45.' 'Verdict for defendant/cross-claimant against plaintiff/cross-defendant on the cross-claim in the amount of $10,000.00.' 'Judgment for plaintiff/cross-defendant against defendant/cross-claimant by way of set-off in the amount of...