CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall

In the case of CMF Projects Pty Ltd v Riggall, the plaintiff, a building contractor, sought to recover payments from the defendants, who were the owners of a property on which the plaintiff had carried out building work. The dispute arose from a cost-plus contract for domestic building work and was subject to the statutory regulation of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 2000 (Qld). The key issue before the court was whether the contractor could recover on a quantum meruit basis from the District Court due to the absence of a fair and reasonable estimate in the contract, as required by s 55(3) of the Act. Additionally, the court considered whether the owner was estopped from disputing the contractor's quantum meruit claim due to the statutory prohibition against contracting out of the Act.

The court held that the contractor could not recover on a quantum meruit basis from the District Court, as the absence of a fair and reasonable estimate in the contract precluded such a recovery. The court found that the statutory framework of the Act provided a comprehensive scheme for the resolution of disputes, including through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and that it was in the public interest to maintain the rights conferred by s 55. The court also determined that the prohibition against contracting out of the Act did not estop the owner from disputing the contractor's quantum meruit claim, as the statutory rights were not so fundamental as to preclude estoppel. Regarding the pleadings, the court struck out certain parts of the contractor's pleadings for failing to allege that the contract was fully executed, as required by UCPR r 153, and ordered the contractor to pay the owners' costs of the application on the indemnity basis.

The court's final orders included the striking out of specific paragraphs of the contractor's pleadings and the awarding of costs to the owners. The contractor was given leave to seek to set aside the order for costs and to apply for an alternative order within seven days. This decision highlights the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements in building contracts and the consequences of failing to do so, as well as the limited scope for estoppel in the context of statutory rights.