Thompson v Chapman [2015] NSWCATAP 233

Thompson v Chapman [2015] NSWCATAP 233

The Appeal Panel held that a 20% profit margin could be included in the quantum meruit assessment, and that the contract price did not operate as a cap, as the remedy is restitutionary and the quantum meruit is assessed based on reasonable remuneration, supported by precedent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Commercial and Consumer Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['quantum Meruit' 'statutory Unenforceability of Contract' 'assessment of Reasonable Remuneration' 'profit Margin in Quantum Meruit']
['building and Construction Law' 'restitution'] ['quantum Meruit' 'statutory Unenforceability of Contract' 'assessment of Reasonable Remuneration' 'profit Margin in Quantum Meruit']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Commercial and Consumer Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred by including a 20% profit margin in quantum meruit assessment where the builder's contract was unenforceable under the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW)" 'Whether the unenforceable contract imposes a cap or limit on the sum recoverable under quantum meruit']

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Panel held that a 20% profit margin could be included in the quantum meruit assessment, and that the contract price did not operate as a cap, as the remedy is restitutionary and the quantum meruit is assessed based on reasonable remuneration, supported by precedent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']