CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall

CMF Projects Pty Ltd (the appellant) brought an action against Riggall (the respondents) for an outstanding sum of $182,252 under a contract for home renovations. The contract was a "cost plus contract" and fell under the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld). The primary judge ruled that the amended statement of claim, which included a quantum meruit argument, was struck out and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis. The appellant appealed this decision, questioning whether the Domestic Building Contracts Act precludes an action based on quantum meruit and whether the primary judge's order for costs was appropriate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Domestic Building Contracts Act precludes a claim for quantum meruit and if the primary judge's order for costs on an indemnity basis was justified. The court had to determine if the Domestic Building Contracts Act's provisions prevented the appellant from recovering the outstanding amount under a quantum meruit claim. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the primary judge was correct in ordering the appellant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.

The court found that the Domestic Building Contracts Act does not preclude a claim for quantum meruit, and the primary judge's order for costs on an indemnity basis was not justified. The court held that the Domestic Building Contracts Act allows for claims based on quantum meruit, and therefore, the appellant could recover the outstanding amount through such a claim. Furthermore, the court found that the primary judge should not have ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis, as the quantum meruit argument was not unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the court varied the orders made by the primary judge. The court struck out specific paragraphs of the statement of claim and counterclaim and set aside the order for costs on an indemnity basis. Instead, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs, and the respondents were to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on the standard basis, except for the costs related to specific grounds in the notice of appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of those specific grounds on the standard basis.