Steele v Tardiani [1946] HCA 21

Steele v Tardiani [1946] HCA 21

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis for work accepted by the defendant, notwithstanding failure to strictly comply with contract dimensions, as defendant accepted, used, and sold the benefit of the labour; the Supreme Court had jurisdiction because the contracted payment rate exceeded the industrial award rate, and there was no sufficient statutory basis to exclude such jurisdiction or to render the contract illegal under the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations.

Parties
Defendant: E. B. Steele; Plaintiffs: Tardiani and others (including Pola and de Mauro)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment (high Court of Australia)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment of trial judge restored; order of Full Court varied; no order as to costs in High Court.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Industrial Awards, Jurisdiction, Remuneration, Part Performance, Employment Contracts
Contract Law Employment Law Industrial Law Quantum Meruit Industrial Awards Jurisdiction Remuneration Part Performance +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. B. Steele

Defendant

Tardiani and others (including Pola and de Mauro)

Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment (high Court of Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover for firewood cut not in accordance with contract specification
  2. 2 Whether acceptance and use by defendant constitutes acceptance for quantum meruit
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court of Queensland had jurisdiction or if the matter fell under exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under applicable industrial awards

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs are entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis for work accepted by the defendant, notwithstanding failure to strictly comply with contract dimensions, as defendant accepted, used, and sold the benefit of the labour; the Supreme Court had jurisdiction because the contracted payment rate exceeded the industrial award rate, and there was no sufficient statutory basis to exclude such jurisdiction or to render the contract illegal under the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment of trial judge restored; order of Full Court varied; no order as to costs in High Court.

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court varied by discharging so much as ordered that E. A. Douglas J.'s judgment be varied.
  • Judgment of trial judge restored.