Pohlmann v Harrison - [1993] QCA 1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 001
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 103 of 1992

BERNARD ABDIEL POHLMANN

Respondent

- and
GILBERT ROBERT HARRISON and
JUNE DOROTHY HARRISON

Appellants

JOINT JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE J.

Delivered the 3rd day of February, 1993

This is an appeal from a judgment in the District Court
on 1 May 1992 whereby the appellants were ordered to pay to
the respondent the sum of $66,132.22 together with the
respondent's taxed costs, including any reserved costs, of
and incidental to the action.

Early in November 1988, the respondent, who is a registered builder, agreed with one Kay Anderson that, in return for payments she would receive, she would find customers to engage the respondent to build houses for them in the Hervey Bay area where the respondent and his wife and Anderson and her husband lived. The relationship between the respondent and Anderson seems never to have been defined with precision or formalised, but three such transactions were subsequently entered into, with the respondent named as builder in each of the contracts with the third parties.

However, another venture in which the respondent and Anderson were involved, in which the appellants were the customers, took a different form.

The appellants, who lived in Victoria, had first met Anderson earlier that year when she worked for a building company from which she later removed some house plans and specifications when her employment terminated. When the appellants returned to Hervey Bay, they again met Anderson and expressed renewed interest in having a house built in accordance with one set of these plans and specifications.

At Anderson's request, the respondent worked out a price of
$84,000.00.

A meeting took place between the appellants, the respondent and his wife and Anderson at Anderson's home on 11 November 1988. The respondent was introduced as the builder and variations to the plan and specifications were discussed and agreed on at the quoted price of $84,000.00. The respondent produced two Master Builders' standard form contracts which he signed as builder and left with the appellants for them to check with their solicitor and to insert some further details which were needed. It was intended that the contracts, when completed in due course, would be handed by the appellants to Anderson.

During the following days, there were a number of meetings between the appellants, Anderson and the respondent's wife at an office set up by Anderson using the name K.A. Homes. The respondent's wife worked in the office together with Anderson.

On 17 November 1988, the appellants were asked by Anderson to sign the contracts, which named the appellants as owners and the respondent and his wife as builders. However, Anderson also asked the appellants to make a deposit cheque of $1,400.00 to K.A. Homes. The appellants declined to do so because K.A. Homes was not named as a contracting party. Following a visit by the appellants and Anderson to her then solicitor, they returned to the office of…

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 Pohlmann v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Pohlmann v Harrison [1993] QCA 1
Case: [1993] QCA 1
Decision Date: 3/02/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pohlmann v Harrison, the dispute arose between the parties involved in a residential building project. The respondent, Pohlmann, a builder, had entered into an unenforceable contract with the appellants, Harrison, for the construction of a house. The respondent subsequently sued for damages, claiming a quantum meruit for the work done and materials supplied, while the appellants argued that the respondent was not entitled to any payment as there was no enforceable contract. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and subsequently, the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the respondent was entitled to a quantum meruit and if the appellants were unjustly enriched by the work and materials provided. The Court had to consider the principles of unjust enrichment and the availability of a quantum meruit remedy in cases where a contract is unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was entitled to a quantum meruit as a remedy for the work done and materials supplied, despite the contract being unenforceable. The Court found that the respondent's claim for unjust enrichment was based on the appellants retaining the benefit of the work and materials without paying for them. The Court emphasised that the doctrine of unjust enrichment provides a remedy for situations where it would be unjust for a party to retain a benefit without compensating the other party. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision that the respondent was entitled to a quantum meruit.

The Court further determined that the respondent was entitled to damages for the cost of the work done and materials supplied, which was calculated at $160,000. The Court of Appeal also awarded costs to the respondent.

Orders