De More v Garpace

The dispute in *De More v Garpace* concerned the enforceability of a subcontract for residential building work. The primary issue was whether the subcontractor, Garpace, was entitled to payment under the subcontract, given that Garpace was not licensed as required by the *Home Building Act 1989* (NSW). The case was heard on appeal in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal question before the Court of Appeal was the proper interpretation of various provisions of the *Home Building Act 1989*, specifically sections 4, 5, 10(3), 12, and 16. The court was required to determine whether the Act, in its language and structure, distinguished between employees and subcontractors in its licensing requirements and whether this distinction impacted the enforceability of a contract where the subcontractor lacked the requisite licence. The court also considered the legislative policy and intent behind these provisions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the subcontractor was not entitled to payment under the contract due to the absence of a licence as mandated by the *Home Building Act 1989*. The court's reasoning focused on the statutory construction of the Act, concluding that Parliament had intended to distinguish between employees and subcontractors and that the licensing provisions were designed to protect consumers by ensuring that only licensed individuals or entities undertook building work. The court held that the subcontractor's failure to hold a licence rendered the subcontract unenforceable. The appeal was allowed with costs, and consequential orders were made.