Coshott v Lenin

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.