Peet Limited v Richmond (No 1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL LIST

No. 4198 of 2007
F6072

PEET LIMITED	Plaintiff
v
ELIZABETH AMELIA RICHMOND	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20-22 and 27 October 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Peet Limited v Richmond (No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 130	1ST Revision: 16 April 2009

---

Restitution – Unjust enrichment – No binding contract – Recovery on quantum meruit basis for services rendered – Plaintiff assisted defendant in having defendant’s land included in urban growth boundary – Defendant’s land increased in value – Whether plaintiff entitled to quantum meruit award based on 20% of the increased value of the land – Whether plaintiff has established that all work done for benefit of defendant

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A J Myers QC Mr M Bevan-John Ms C Button	Mills Oakley
For the Defendant	Mr P Jopling QC Mr P Solomon	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Peet’s claim.......................................................................................................................................... 2

Scope of the current disputes about the quantum meruit claim............................................... 5

What is not disputed.................................................................................................................... 5
The third party claim.................................................................................................................... 6
The 20% claim................................................................................................................................ 6
The internal costs claim................................................................................................................ 7

Relevant legal principles.................................................................................................................. 7

The evidence....................................................................................................................................... 9

Peet’s lay witnesses.................................................................................................................... 10

Marco Antonio Liali................................................................................................................. 10
Daniel Mulder.......................................................................................................................... 11
Anthony James Lennon............................................................................................................ 12
Warwick Donald Hemsley........................................................................................................ 13
Gwynfor Bracher Davies.......................................................................................................... 14
Mr Lennon Snr........................................................................................................................ 14

Mr Dwyer..................................................................................................................................... 15

The third party claim....................................................................................................................... 20

No proof of payment ................................................................................................................. 21
Tract invoices .............................................................................................................................. 22
Ponte Earle .................................................................................................................................. 26
GST on third party claim ........................................................................................................... 27
Summary of conclusions on the third party claim................................................................. 27

The 20% claim................................................................................................................................... 28

The basis of Peet’s claim............................................................................................................ 28
The usual basis of payment for Peet’s work........................................................................... 29
The MOU...................................................................................................................................... 29
The draft agreements.................................................................................................................. 32
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 35

The internal costs claim................................................................................................................... 37

Scope of the dispute................................................................................................................... 37
Work not done for Mrs Richmond’s benefit........................................................................... 38

Work pre-dating the commencement of the project .................................................................. 38

Work concerning the cashflow analysis............................................................................ 40
External meetings before November 2002........................................................................ 41
Internal meetings before November 2002......................................................................... 41

Work done in 2006 .................................................................................................................. 42
Other work done for the benefit of Peet .................................................................................... 44
Work done in respect of the Carter land .................................................................................. 45

The work of administrative staff .............................................................................................. 46
Excessive email allowance ....................................................................................................... 48
Attendance by Anthony Lennon at meetings ........................................................................ 49
Peet v Wyndham City Council ................................................................................................ 51
“Tentative” meeting entries ..................................................................................................... 52
Conclusion on specific items in the internal work claim...................................................... 53
Further adjustment..................................................................................................................... 54

Summary............................................................................................................................................ 55

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

1. The defendant, Mrs Richmond, owns a large parcel of former farming land, located in Bulban Road, Werribee.[1]  With the increase of Melbourne’s urban boundaries, the Richmond land now sits 3.5 kilometres from the Werribee town centre, and borders a number of new and established housing developments.

   [1]The land is known as Berry’s Paddock (Certificates of Title Vol 8294 Fol 528 and Vol 3498 Fol 413) and Quarry…