Applicant Claims Compensation for Plumbing Work Against Respondent

Around The Clock Plumbing Pty Ltd v Marchese (Civil Claims) [2021] VCAT 938 (20 August 2021)

The Applicant performed plumbing works at the Respondent's home.  When the Applicant asked for his pay, the Respondent opposed the same asserting that there was no contract because he was not given a "fixed price" and that he had not consented to the continuation of further plumbing works.  The Court, in deciding whether or not there was a contract between the parties, relied upon the evidence provided by each party as well as relevant jurisprudence. 

Facts:

The Applicant performed domestic plumbing works at the Respondent’s home on 9, 10 and 11 March 2020.  On 12 March 2020, the Applicant issued an invoice for an amount of $15,815.80.  The Respondent refused to pay because the Respondent was waiting for photographs and a video of the works from the Applicant so that he could pursue a claim with his insurer.  The Respondent further alleges that he had not given his “written authorisation” to the Applicant to proceed with the repair, that the Applicant had not provided a "fixed price", that the Respondent was not informed of the repair costs, and that there was no compliance certificate provided for the works. 

As the Respondent’s business had been shut down by the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions, the Respondent stated that he now had more pressing matters to deal with.  On 4 April 2020, the Applicant issued this proceeding to recover the invoiced sum.  Mr Unwin gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant stating that at no time did the Respondent request any further estimate of costs and that Respondent was happy for the work to proceed.  Mr Unwin said that the Respondent had recovered money from his insurer to cover the exploratory works. 

This sum had not been paid to the Applicant.  The Respondent contends that there was no concluded contract between him and the Applicant because he was never given a “fixed price” for the work.  He says that he was given no estimate at all.  He further says that he only instructed the Applicant to fix the blockage, not carry out any remedial work.

Issue:

I. Whether or not the parties had made a contract.

II. Whether or not quantum meruit applied.

III. Whether or not all work performed was necessary.

Applicable law:

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s 115C - provides that a party who has substantially succeeded against another party in a proceeding is entitled to an order under section 115B that the other party reimburse the successful party the whole of any fees paid by the successful party in the proceeding.

British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co. Ltd [1984] 1 All E R 504  - provides for the application of quantum meruit if there is no given estimate of the price of services rendered because there is an obligation to pay a reasonable remuneration in all circumstances.

Greenmast Shipping v Jean Lion (The Saronikos) [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep. 277 - while the courts have not set down any rigid guidelines for assessing what is a reasonable sum, it is clear that the contractor should be paid a fair commercial rate for the work done.

Analysis:

The Respondent contends that there was no concluded contract between him and the Applicant because he was never given a “fixed price” for the work.  However, applying quantum meruit, he would still be obliged to pay reasonable remuneration to the Applicant, in all the circumstances.  While the courts have not set down any rigid guidelines for assessing what is a reasonable sum, the contractor should be paid a fair commercial rate for the work done.  Mr Sharp and Mr Langley applied a charge out rate of $100 per hour for a qualified plumber. 

These charges are significantly below the charging rates set out in the invoice submitted by Milford Plumbing for unblocking the Respondent’s drain with a high-pressure waterjet in May 2018 and June 2019.  The Applicant contended that the Respondent accepted the pricing of between $12,000 to $16,000 excluding GST (depending upon the extent of the damage) to permanently fix the blocked and damaged sewer pipe.  Mr Marchese subsequently gave Mr Unwin instructions to proceed with the works “to fix” the sewer drain.  This was corroborated by Mr Vitos, a witness for the Applicant. 

While Mr Nanfra asserts that the fitting of the two Brawoliner sleeves was an unnecessary expense, Mr Nanfra's evidence in favor of the Respondent could not be relied upon as compared to the witnesses for the Applicant's witnesses because he is a long-standing friend of Mr Marchese.  Furthermore, he did not have the benefit of a direct observation of the works as they progressed. 

Conclusion:

The Court found that Mr Marchese authorised the work after having been told the costs would come in between $12,000 and $16,000 exclusive of GST.  The invoice sent by the Applicant was within that range.  Given these findings, the Respondent cannot refuse to pay the Applicant’s invoice on the basis that other plumbers might have done the work, or some of the work, for a much lower sum.  The Tribunal orders that the Respondent, Liborio Marchese, must pay to the Applicant, Around The Clock Plumbing Pty Ltd, the sum of $15,815.50. 

Being satisfied that the Applicant has substantially succeeded in its claim, the Tribunal orders that the Respondent, Liborio Marchese, must reimburse the Applicant, Around The Clock Plumbing Pty Ltd, the application fee of $696.10.