Ling v Xu

The dispute in Ling v Xu involved Wei Ling, the plaintiff, and Weijiang Xu, also known as Jeff Xu, the defendant. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which is responsible for resolving employment and workplace disputes in Australia. The primary issue in this case was whether Mr Xu, an unlicensed contractor, was entitled to payment for his services under the contract between the parties. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate quantum of damages if any, given the nature of the contract and the circumstances of the termination.

The court had to consider whether the contract was void ab initio due to Mr Xu's lack of a licence, or if it could be saved under the doctrine of substantial performance. The court also needed to assess whether the plaintiff was entitled to any recovery under the principle of quantum meruit, which refers to compensation for work done where no formal contract exists. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the plaintiff was entitled to a set-off against any amount due to Mr Xu, considering the partial performance of the contract.

In its decision, the court held that the contract was not void due to Mr Xu's lack of a licence and that he was entitled to payment under the doctrine of substantial performance. The court found that the contract could be saved because the plaintiff had substantially performed his obligations and the defects could be remedied at a reasonable cost. The court also determined that Mr Xu was entitled to a quantum meruit recovery for the work he had done. After assessing the evidence, the court calculated that Mr Xu was owed $66,206.39. However, the court ordered that this amount be paid to Ms Ling, as she had already paid Mr Xu and was entitled to a set-off against any amount due to him.

The final orders of the court required Mr Xu to pay Ms Ling the sum of $66,206.39 immediately. The application for costs was dismissed, and specific timelines were set for any future costs applications to be lodged and responded to. The court emphasised the importance of the parties indicating whether they consented to the determination of costs applications on the basis of written submissions and documents, without the need for a hearing.