Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd

In Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Mann, brought an action against the defendant, Paterson Constructions, seeking restitution for work done under a building contract that had been repudiated by the owners. The dispute came before the court following an earlier decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which had awarded Mann a quantum meruit sum based on the evidence of a quantity surveyor rather than Mann’s actual costs. Mann appealed the VCAT decision, arguing that the assessment should have been based on actual costs and not on the quantity surveyor’s evidence. Additionally, Mann sought to argue that section 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 precluded recovery for orally agreed variations on a quantum meruit basis.

The court was required to determine whether the VCAT was correct in basing its assessment on the quantity surveyor’s evidence rather than Mann’s actual costs, and whether section 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 precluded recovery for orally agreed variations on a quantum meruit basis. The court considered whether the VCAT had erred in its approach and whether the quantum meruit award should have been based on Mann’s actual costs. Additionally, the court had to examine the effect of section 38 of the Act on the availability of a quantum meruit claim for orally agreed variations.

The court found that the VCAT had not erred in basing its assessment on the quantity surveyor’s evidence rather than Mann’s actual costs. The court held that the quantity surveyor’s evidence was a reliable and appropriate method of assessing the value of the work done, and that it was not necessary to consider Mann’s actual costs. The court also held that section 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 did not preclude recovery for orally agreed variations on a quantum meruit basis. The court followed the decision in Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) and held that the acceptance of the owners’ repudiation of the contract did not prevent Mann from recovering on a quantum meruit basis. The appeal was dismissed.

The court’s final order was that the appeal be dismissed and that the VCAT’s decision be affirmed. The court held that the VCAT had not erred in basing its assessment on the quantity surveyor’s evidence and that section 38 of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 did not preclude recovery for orally agreed variations on a quantum meruit basis. The court followed the decision in Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) and held that the acceptance of the owners’ repudiation of the contract did not prevent Mann from recovering on a quantum meruit basis.