Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWCA 310 Hearing dates: 21 October 2020 Decision date: 02 December 2020 Before: White JA at [1];
Brereton JA at [56];
McCallum JA at [57]Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: RESTITUTION — Quantum meruit – whether necessary to establish “objective standard” or “market rate” for value of work performed – whether invoices prepared by builder capable of being evidence of reasonable remuneration – where unreasonableness of invoices denied by builder – where appeal confined to a question of law
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 79
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) ss 39, 40
Cases Cited: Flett v Deniliquin Publishing Co Ltd (1964–1965) NSWR 383
Horley v Sector 7G Architecture Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] NSWSC 827
L Shaddock and Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No. 1) (1981) 150 CLR 225; [1981] HCA 59
Mann v Patterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32; 93 ALJR 1164
McPhee v S Bennett Ltd (1934) 52 WN (NSW) 8
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221; [1987] HCA 5
Re MSU Management Pty Ltd; Urusoglu v MSU Management Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] NSWSC 54
Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWSC 123
Sochorova v Durairaj [2020] QCA 158
Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2009) 24 VR 510; [2009] VSCA 141
South Australian Harbours Board v South Australian Gas Co (1934) 51 CLR 485; [1934] HCA 45
Thomas v Hollier (1984) 156 CLR 152; [1984] HCA 35
Texts Cited: J D Heydon, Cross on Evidence, 12th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2020
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ali Roude (First Appellant)
Susan Roude (Second Appellant)
Adib Helwani (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
F Hicks SC with D Allen (Appellants)
Q Rares (Respondent)
Darby Jones Lawyers (Appellants)
Garland Hawthorn Brahe (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2020/71539 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law Division
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 26 February 2020
- Before:
- Harrison AsJ
- File Number(s):
- 2017/295301
HEADNOTE
The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court from a judgment of a Local Court Magistrate who gave judgment for the respondent on a quantum meruit claim for reasonable remuneration for electrical and plumbing work carried out by the respondent. The appeal was on a question of law. The appellants contended that there was no evidence of the fair and reasonable cost of performing the work. An Associate Judge dismissed the appeal finding there was evidence on which the learned magistrate was entitled to rely in determining the quantum meruit.
The respondent carried out extensive electrical and plumbing work for the appellants over a period of five years from 2008. There was no written contract, no quotation, and no defined scope of work. During the course of the work, the appellants…
Continue reading Roude v Helwani
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Roude v Helwani [2020] NSWCA 310
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether it was necessary to establish an "objective standard" or "market rate" to determine the value of the work performed in a claim for remuneration on a quantum meruit basis. A further issue was whether invoices prepared by the builder could be admitted as evidence of reasonable remuneration, particularly where the builder denied their unreasonableness.
The Court of Appeal held that it was not necessary to establish an objective standard or market rate for the value of work performed to succeed in a quantum meruit claim. The court reasoned that the invoices prepared by the builder were capable of being evidence of reasonable remuneration, especially as the builder had not conceded their unreasonableness. The court affirmed that the question of what constitutes reasonable remuneration is a question of fact, and the invoices provided a basis for assessing that remuneration.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.