Cochrane v Lees

The Cochranes appealed against a decision of the Building and Construction Commission of New South Wales (the Commission), while also seeking to adduce further evidence in their appeal. The Cochranes hired Daniel Lees to build their home and pool deck. The Cochranes did not attend the hearing, and sought to rely on a doctor’s certificate to show a reasonable excuse for their non-attendance. At first instance, the Commission found in favour of Lees and ordered the Cochranes to pay him a sum of money. The Cochranes sought to adduce photographs and additional documents in their appeal, which were available at the time of the initial hearing. The Cochranes also argued that Lees was not entitled to recover on quantum meruit and that the variations were invalid as they were unsigned. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Commission was set aside. The Cochranes were ordered to pay Lees $3,918.13 within 28 days of the decision. The applications to adduce fresh evidence were refused, and the counter application by the Cochranes was dismissed.

The appeal raised several legal issues. The first issue was whether the Cochranes could adduce further evidence in their appeal. The second issue was whether Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit. The third issue was whether the variations should be excluded from the calculation of damages. The court found that the Cochranes could not adduce further evidence as it was available at the time of the initial hearing. The court found that Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit, as most of the building work was complete, and Lees had not obtained approval for the building works as required under the contract. The court found that the variations should be included in the calculation of damages, as they were signed by the Cochranes.

The court held that the Cochranes could not adduce further evidence as it was available at the time of the initial hearing. The court held that Lees was entitled to recover on quantum meruit, as most of the building work was complete, and Lees had not obtained approval for the building works as required under the contract. The court held that the variations should be included in the calculation of damages, as they were signed by the Cochranes. The court held that the evidence of Lees at the hearing was that he had not paid the painter the amount of $700, however he was ‘was hoping to be able to claim it to give me the opportunity to pay him.’ The court held that the claim by Lees should be allowed. The court held that the Cochranes must pay Lees $700 in respect of the house contract, and $3,218.13 in respect of the pool deck contract. The court held that the applications to adduce fresh evidence were refused, and the counter application by the Cochranes was dismissed.