New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: COSHOTT v LENIN [2007] NSWCA 153 HEARING DATE(S): 20 June 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
20 June 2007JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 2; Campbell JA at 19 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 20 June 2007 DECISION: Appeal dismissed. CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Contracts, torts and personal actions – when time begins to run – particular causes of action – cause of action founded on quasi-contract – unjust enrichment – restitution – quantum meruit – time runs from when the defendant received the benefit – Limitation Act 1969, s 14 - RESTITUTION – Recompense for services rendered – quantum meruit – legal practitioner claim for unpaid fees - RESTITUTION – general principles – whether there is a right of action for unjust enrichment simpliciter – where a contractual promise subsists – relationship of restitution to contract – restitution operates around contract and does not subvert it - STATUTE – Acts of parliament – interpretation – particular words and phrases – general – “quasi contract” – rules of construction – irrelevant that phrase may no longer be used in law – Act to be interpreted according to its plain meaning and not according to prevailing legal orthodoxy – Limitation Act 1969, s 14(1)(a) LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969 s14 CASES CITED: David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221
Robert Coshott v Michael Lenin [2006] NSWDC 139
Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516
Sharpe v Goodhew (1990) 33 IR 238
Stinchcombe v Thomas [1957] VR 509
Trimis v Mina [1999] NSWCA 140
Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Pty Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251
Wasada Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 987PARTIES: Robert Gilbert COSHOTT
Michael Petrovic LENINFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40765/06 COUNSEL: Appellant: In Person
Respondent: J W ConomosSOLICITORS: Appellant: Robert G Coshott
Respondent: HicksonsLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 4185/05 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Neilson DCJ
CA 40765/2006
Wednesday 20 June 2007SPIGELMAN CJ
MASON P
CAMPBELL JA
Robert Gilbert COSHOTT v Michael Petrovic LENIN
JUDGMENT
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with the reasons of Mason P.
2 MASON P: The appellant was the respondent's solicitor between 1 January 1990 and 30 June 1991, representing him in Supreme Court proceedings against an insurer claiming indemnity for losses suffered in the Newcastle earthquake of 28 December 1989. When the appellant ceased to practise as a solicitor on 30 June 1991 he transferred the file to another firm. In May 1992 the insurance claim was settled with the respondent receiving a substantial sum.
3 According to the appellant's statement of claim, the conduct of the proceedings was taken over by the new solicitor (Mr Vardas) in July 1991 "on the basis…
Continue reading Coshott v Lenin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Coshott v Lenin [2007] NSWCA 153
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 153
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning the application of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The dispute involved a claim by a legal practitioner, Mr. Coshott, for unpaid fees against his former client, Mr. Lenin. The central issue was when the limitation period for a claim founded on unjust enrichment, specifically a *quantum meruit* claim for services rendered, began to run.
The court was required to determine whether the cause of action for unjust enrichment accrued at the time the benefit was conferred or at the time the contract was terminated. Specifically, the court had to interpret section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969, which deals with when time begins to run for actions founded on "quasi-contract". The court also considered the relationship between restitutionary claims and subsisting contractual promises, and whether a claim for unjust enrichment could be brought where a contract remained on foot.
The court reasoned that the phrase "quasi-contract" in section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 should be interpreted according to its plain meaning, irrespective of whether the term is still in common legal usage. It held that a *quantum meruit* claim for services rendered, which falls within the ambit of quasi-contract, accrues at the time the defendant received the benefit. The court affirmed that restitution operates around, and does not subvert, existing contractual arrangements. Therefore, the limitation period for Mr. Coshott's claim began to run from when Mr. Lenin received the benefit of the legal services, not from the termination of the retainer.
The appeal was dismissed.
The court was required to determine whether the cause of action for unjust enrichment accrued at the time the benefit was conferred or at the time the contract was terminated. Specifically, the court had to interpret section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969, which deals with when time begins to run for actions founded on "quasi-contract". The court also considered the relationship between restitutionary claims and subsisting contractual promises, and whether a claim for unjust enrichment could be brought where a contract remained on foot.
The court reasoned that the phrase "quasi-contract" in section 14(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 should be interpreted according to its plain meaning, irrespective of whether the term is still in common legal usage. It held that a *quantum meruit* claim for services rendered, which falls within the ambit of quasi-contract, accrues at the time the defendant received the benefit. The court affirmed that restitution operates around, and does not subvert, existing contractual arrangements. Therefore, the limitation period for Mr. Coshott's claim began to run from when Mr. Lenin received the benefit of the legal services, not from the termination of the retainer.
The appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.