Abigroup Ltd v Sandtara Pty Ltd; Wenkart v Pitman; Abignano v Abigroup Ltd

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered three separate appeals concerning the interpretation and application of the *Builders Licensing Act 1971* (NSW) (the Act). The first appeal, *Abigroup Ltd v Sandtara Pty Ltd*, involved a dispute over payment for building work. The second, *Wenkart v Pitman*, concerned a claim for damages arising from defective building work. The third appeal, *Abignano and Anor v Abigroup Ltd*, also related to a dispute over payment for building services.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the plaintiffs in each case, who had performed building work without holding the requisite licence under the Act, were entitled to recover payment for that work. This involved determining the effect of section 32 of the Act, which prohibited unlicensed persons from suing for the recovery of money in respect of building work. The Court also had to consider whether the defendants were estopped from raising the defence of illegality under section 32, and whether the plaintiffs could recover on a quantum meruit basis.

The Court of Appeal held that section 32 of the Act was a complete bar to recovery for unlicensed builders, regardless of whether the work was completed or defective, or whether the other party had received a benefit. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the Act was to protect the public by ensuring that only licensed builders performed building work, and that allowing recovery would undermine this purpose. The Court rejected arguments based on estoppel and quantum meruit, finding that these equitable doctrines could not override the statutory prohibition.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals, upholding the trial judges' decisions that the unlicensed builders were not entitled to recover payment for the work performed.