TRIMIS & ANOR v MINA [1999] NSWCA 140

TRIMIS & ANOR v MINA [1999] NSWCA 140

The owners' conduct on 9 August 1994 amounted to repudiation of the contract, which was accepted by the builder, entitling him to damages for contract work performed and loss of profit, but not to restitution for unwritten variations absent the owner's knowledge and assent to pay for extras.

Parties
Appellant: Sofoclis Trimis & Anor; Respondent: Nazih Mina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Repudiation, Unwritten Variations, Measure of Damages, Restitution, Quantum Meruit
Contract Law Building Contracts Repudiation Unwritten Variations Measure of Damages Restitution 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sofoclis Trimis & Anor

Appellant

Nazih Mina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owners repudiated the contract on 23 March 1994 or 9 August 1994
  2. 2 Whether the builder was entitled to damages and quantum meruit for work and variations
  3. 3 Whether the owners' cross-claim for damages was precluded by their repudiation or the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The owners' conduct on 9 August 1994 amounted to repudiation of the contract, which was accepted by the builder, entitling him to damages for contract work performed and loss of profit, but not to restitution for unwritten variations absent the owner's knowledge and assent to pay for extras.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appeal upheld only regarding five variations allowed by trial judge; parties to submit Short Minutes within 14 days regarding orders and costs; further submissions permitted if no agreement.
  • Dismissal of owners' cross-claim for damages affirmed.