Prior to the High Court’s decision in Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32, claims by builders and contractors on a quantum meruit basis could not exceed the agreed contractual price. That practice has now been ruled out in many cases. At an event hosted by the Society of Construction Law Australia (SoCLA) and Clayton Utz (Brisbane), Michael Trim and Sean Russell looked at the background decision, precisely what was and was not decided and how the reasoning can affect both inside and outside the construction industry.
The key areas reviewed included:
- the differences between divisible and entire obligations
- understanding what the case decided
- the three sets of differing reasoning
- variations regulated by statute
- broader impact
The micro-learning slides from the event can be found below.
So what is a quantum meruit claim? – Michael Trim
Mann v Paterson background – Michael Trim
Mann v Paterson High Court decision – Michael Trim
Mann v Paterson the minority decision – Michael Trim
Mann v Paterson the majority decision (Nettle, Gordon, Edelman, Gageler) – Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson justification for the minority decision – Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson so what went wrong? The basis is the other party’s promise to perform- Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson so what went wrong? 2 No need for restitution, damages are adequate – Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson so what went wrong? 3 parties have contractually allocated risk – Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson the majority answer – Sean Russell
Mann v Paterson what does it all mean? – Michael Trim
