A new day has dawned in Australia and so it is on tomorrow’s date (for me) that the High Court will have just released its judgment in Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA//2019/32.html 

Only on the RDG is restitution news announced the day before it happens.

I will not try to summarize it but will provide the catch words:

Restitution – Unjust enrichment – Work and labour done – Where land owners and builder entered into contract to which Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 (Vic) applied – Where contract provided for progress payments at completion of stages – Where owners requested, and builder carried out, variations to plans and specifications in contract without giving written notice as required by s 38 of Act – Where owners repudiated contract after builder raised invoice claiming for variations – Where contract terminated by builder's acceptance of owners' repudiation – Whether s 38 of Act applied to limit amount recoverable by builder for variations – Whether builder entitled to recover in restitution as alternative to claim in damages for breach of contract – Whether contract price operated as ceiling on amount recoverable by way of restitution.

There are three judgments, in one of which (Nettle, Gordon and Edelman JJ) is found ([214]) the sentence: “Whether or not that is so, however, in this country restitution arises in recognised categories of case and is not necessarily available whenever, and to the extent that, a defendant is enriched at the plaintiff's expense in circumstances that render the enrichment unjust.”

Interesting times we live in. Many members of this list cited in the footnotes, and a few other folks as well.

Lionel