Ingate v Andrews [2018] NSWCATAP 99

Ingate v Andrews [2018] NSWCATAP 99

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal was entitled to treat the building contract as the appropriate document for determining the scope of the works and did not err in its approach to quantum meruit. Although the Tribunal did not expressly repeat every Goodacre criterion, its reasons showed that it focused on acceptance, including the Appellants' contemporary awareness of the works, their opportunity to intervene or reject them, and their retention of the benefit. On a fair reading, the Tribunal applied a correct restitutionary analysis and was entitled to order payment for the allowed variations. The remaining alleged errors about concessions and set-offs were not identified with...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Home Building Appeal Concerning a Builder's Claim Against Owners for Undocumented Variations on a Quantum Meruit Basis / Appeal Panel Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 01 September 2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['undocumented Variations' 'quantum Meruit' 'restitution for Accepted Building Work' 'scope of Building Contract' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'appeal on a Question of Law']
['home Building' 'contract Law' 'restitution' 'civil Procedure'] ['undocumented Variations' 'quantum Meruit' 'restitution for Accepted Building Work' 'scope of Building Contract' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'appeal on a Question of Law']

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

Home Building Appeal Concerning a Builder's Claim Against Owners for Undocumented Variations on a Quantum Meruit Basis / Appeal Panel Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 01 September 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the contractual allocation of risk between the parties.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the joint venture agreement was subsumed into the building contract.' 'Whether the Tribunal correctly understood and applied the law of restitution and quantum meruit to the second set of variations.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in relation to concessions said to have been made by Mr Andrews before the Tribunal.' "Whether the Tribunal's costs directions should be set aside and replaced with a final order that each side bear its own costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that the Tribunal was entitled to treat the building contract as the appropriate document for determining the scope of the works and did not err in its approach to quantum meruit. Although the Tribunal did not expressly repeat every Goodacre criterion, its reasons showed that it focused on acceptance, including the Appellants' contemporary awareness of the works, their opportunity to intervene or reject them, and their retention of the benefit. On a fair reading, the Tribunal applied a correct restitutionary analysis and was entitled to order payment for the allowed variations. The remaining alleged errors about concessions and set-offs were not identified with...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' 'The parties are granted liberty to apply in connection with the costs of the appeal.']