Antonio & Marianna Di Rico v Dion Cominos; Dion Cominos v Antonio & Marianna Di Rico

Antonio and Marianna Di Rico brought a claim against Dion Cominos for residential building works undertaken on their property. The dispute arose from an alleged failure by Cominos to complete the works in a proper and workmanlike manner, resulting in a claim for rectification and diminution in value. Cominos, in turn, sought damages for the Di Ricos' alleged failure to pay the agreed amount for the works. Both parties sought quantum meruit and quantum valebat claims, as well as claims in restitution and unjust enrichment. The court was required to determine the amount of reasonable remuneration for the works completed, the application of Rawlinson Construction Code rates, and the extent of any rectification costs and causation of losses. The court also had to address issues of estoppel and whether the claims were res judicata in light of a prior Local Court costs order.

The court found that the parties had not entered into a written contract and that Cominos had not obtained insurance for the work as required. However, insurance was subsequently obtained. The court held that the reasonable remuneration for the works completed was to be determined by applying the Rawlinson Construction Code rates, adjusted for inflation. The court rejected Cominos' claim for estoppel and held that the Di Ricos were not precluded from seeking restitution for the defective workmanship. The court also found that the Di Ricos were entitled to recover the reasonable costs of rectification, but that Cominos was not liable for all of the claimed costs due to issues of causation. The court dismissed Cominos' claim for pre-judgment interest and held that the prior Local Court costs order was res judicata on the issue of costs.

The court ordered Cominos to pay the Di Ricos the sum of $47,206.30, representing the reasonable remuneration for the works completed, within 28 days. The court dismissed Cominos' claim for damages and the Di Ricos' claim for pre-judgment interest. The court directed the parties to confer with a view to reaching an agreement on costs, and if they were unable to do so, either party had leave to apply to the Deputy Divisional Registrar for an argument on any costs’ orders. The court did not make any orders in relation to the prior Local Court costs order, as it was found to be res judicata on the issue of costs.