Legal Research
Cases
Kronenberg v Bridge

Kronenberg v Bridge

Case [2013] TASSC 57 4 October 2013

Restitution

Quantum Meruit

Unconscionable Conduct

Breach of Contract

Contract Law

Type to search within this case.

[2013] TASSC 57

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Kronenberg v Bridge [2013] TASSC 57

PARTIES: KRONENBERG, David
KRONENBERG, Robyn

v
BRIDGE, Stephen
TANNER, Stuart

FILE NO:  201/2009
DELIVERED ON:  4 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26, 27, 28 and 29 November, 5 December 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Restitution – Restitution resulting from unenforceable, incomplete, illegal or void contracts – Recompense for services rendered – Quantum meruit – General principles – Impact of breach of Fair Trading Act 1990, s14 on amount claimed,

Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Limited v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120; Wentworth Partners Estate Agents Pty Ltd trading as RE MAX Gold v Gordony [2007] NSWSC 1135; Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 24 VR 510; Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 51, followed.
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191; Hungerfords v Walker (1989) 171 CLR 125; Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420; Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Ltd [2004] 1 AC 715; Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1986) 162 CLR 221; Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (2008) 232 CLR 635, referred to.
Fair Trading Act 1990 (Tas), s14.
Aust Dig Restitution [17]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             First Plaintiff:  S B McElwaine SC
             Second Plaintiff:  S B McElwaine SC
             Defendant:  M E O'Farrell SC
             Third Party:  No appearance
Solicitors:
             First Plaintiff:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             Second Plaintiff:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             Defendant:  Toomey Maning & Co

Judgment Number: [2013] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs: 155

Serial No 57/2013
File No 201/2009

DAVID KRONENBERG and ROBYN KRONENBERG v STEPEHN BRIDGE, STUART TANNER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

4 October 2013

The plaintiffs in this matter, Mr and Mrs Kronenberg, wished to build a home on land they owned at Eaglehawk Neck. They engaged an architect, Mr Tanner, ("the architect") to draw plans for the home, and ultimately engaged a builder, Mr Bridge ("the builder"). The home was built, but at a cost which was far more than the plaintiffs say they should have had to pay. The plaintiffs sued the builder, who then joined the architect as a third party. The proceedings between the architect and the builder were settled with a judgment being entered by consent on 29 October 2012 for the architect against the builder. The proceedings as between the plaintiffs and the builder did not resolve, and a trial commenced on 26 November 2012.

There was no dispute on this trial that the plaintiffs and the builder both signed a form of contract relating to the building of the home in or about January 2007, that that document was a standard form printed contract with some hand-written additions, and that thereafter the builder commenced to build the home. There was also no dispute that he completed the home to a substantial degree, but then left the project as a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Kronenberg v Bridge

Details

AGLC: Kronenberg v Bridge [2013] TASSC 57
Case: [2013] TASSC 57
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kronenberg v Bridge, the parties were engaged in a dispute regarding compensation for services rendered under a contract that was found to be unenforceable. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate amount of restitution the plaintiff was owed. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the principles of restitution, specifically the quantum meruit principle, and how these principles interact with the statutory provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1990.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff, Kronenberg, was entitled to compensation for services rendered under an unenforceable contract. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1990 on the quantum of restitution that could be claimed. Section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1990 provides that a court may make an order for restitution if a contract is found to be void or unenforceable due to unfair trading practices. The court needed to determine whether this statutory provision limited the amount of restitution that could be awarded to Kronenberg.

In delivering its decision, the court considered the principles of restitution and the statutory framework provided by the Fair Trading Act 1990. The court held that while the contract between the parties was unenforceable, Kronenberg was still entitled to compensation for the services rendered. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to be recompensed on a quantum meruit basis. However, the court also held that section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1990 did not impose a ceiling on the amount of restitution that could be claimed. Instead, the court found that the statutory provision was intended to ensure that restitution was available in cases of unfair trading practices, but did not limit the amount of restitution that could be awarded.

The court ordered that the defendant, Bridge, pay Kronenberg the full amount of compensation for the services rendered, as determined on a quantum meruit basis. The court held that there was no statutory limit on the amount of restitution that could be claimed under section 14 of the Fair Trading Act 1990. The court emphasised that the purpose of the statutory provision was to ensure that parties were not unjustly enriched as a result of unfair trading practices, and that the amount of restitution should be determined in accordance with the principles of equity and justice.

Orders