Robert Coshott v Michael Lenin [2006] NSWDC 139

Robert Coshott v Michael Lenin [2006] NSWDC 139

The plaintiff's pleaded unjust enrichment claim did not disclose an independent right of action. In substance, the claim was for the reasonable value of work done, traditionally quantum meruit, or arose from the solicitor-client contract, and those claims were statute barred. Even if unjust enrichment could be treated as a right of action, it would fall within the remedies Parliament intended to cover in section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 and was barred no later than 15 July 1998, while proceedings were not commenced until 27 September 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Recovery of Unpaid Professional Fees / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['unpaid Professional Fees' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment' 'quasi Contract' 'statute Barred Claims' 'limitation Act 1969 Section 14(1)(a)']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'restitution' 'contract'] ['unpaid Professional Fees' 'quantum Meruit' 'unjust Enrichment' 'quasi Contract' 'statute Barred Claims' 'limitation Act 1969 Section 14(1)(a)']

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 Claim for Recovery of Unpaid Professional Fees / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff could recover unpaid professional fees from a former client by pleading unjust enrichment when contract and quasi-contract claims were accepted to be statute barred.' 'Whether unjust enrichment is an independent right of action or merely the legal concept explaining restitutionary remedies formerly rationalised as quasi-contract.' 'Whether any such claim was barred by section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's pleaded unjust enrichment claim did not disclose an independent right of action. In substance, the claim was for the reasonable value of work done, traditionally quantum meruit, or arose from the solicitor-client contract, and those claims were statute barred. Even if unjust enrichment could be treated as a right of action, it would fall within the remedies Parliament intended to cover in section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 and was barred no later than 15 July 1998, while proceedings were not commenced until 27 September 2005.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant; plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs."]