Implications of Mann v Paterson Constructions for Quantum Meruit Claims

The recent decision in Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32 by the High Court of Australia has brought significant clarity and a potential shift in the application of quantum meruit in construction law.

Background of Quantum Meruit

Quantum meruit allows a party to claim reasonable remuneration for services rendered, especially when no specific payment amount is outlined, or a contract has been terminated. It's often seen as a safety net for contractors when disputes arise or when a contract ends abruptly.

The Case

In Mann v Paterson, the dispute centred around a construction contract that had been terminated, with the contractor seeking payment on a quantum meruit basis for the work completed. The High Court was asked to decide whether the contractor could claim more under quantum meruit than they would have been entitled to under the contract itself.

Key Findings

The High Court's decision limits the ability of contractors to claim more than what was originally agreed upon in the contract through a quantum meruit claim. The Court emphasised that the contract should generally dictate the remuneration rather than allowing a potentially higher claim through quantum meruit. This shifts the focus back to the original contractual terms.

Implications for Contractors and Clients

1. Contractual Terms are Paramount: The decision reinforces the importance of detailed, clear, and comprehensive contracts. Parties can no longer rely on quantum meruit to potentially secure a more favourable payment than what the contract provides.
2. Documentation is Key: Accurate documentation of work performed and adherence to the contract terms will be crucial in disputes. The ruling suggests that courts will favour the agreed terms over any subjective assessments of reasonable value.
3. Dispute Resolution: Contractors and clients should consider the impact of this ruling when negotiating and drafting contracts. It may also encourage alternative dispute resolution methods, knowing that courts will likely uphold the original contract terms.

Conclusion

Mann v Paterson Constructions marks a critical turning point in Australia's application of quantum meruit. While quantum meruit remains a valid legal principle, its application has been significantly narrowed. Moving forward, the terms of the contract will hold even greater significance, highlighting the need for careful drafting and comprehensive documentation in construction agreements.

This decision is a reminder to both contractors and clients that the contract is king, and deviations from it will be more challenging to justify in Court.

Seán McNally MRICS, FCIArb, FACICA

Testifying Quantum Expert