Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd ((in Liquidation))
| Jurisdiction | Australia Federal only |
| Judge | Gleeson CJ.,Gummow,Hayne,Crennan,Kiefel JJ. |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | 2008-0618 HCA A,[2008] HCA 27 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | A39/2007 |
| Date | 18 June 2008 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
96 cases
-
Friend v Brooker
...made it unnecessary for Nicholas J to enter upon any issue of unjust enrichment raised by par 24. 7 The joint reasons in Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liq)3 contain two propositions which are relevant here. The first is that, in general, the bare fact of the conferral of some benefi......
- Kazar, Re Frontier Architects Pty Ltd (in Liquidation)
-
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton
...194, is an unfortunate expression for several reasons. It is another expression, along with those recently disfavoured in Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In liq) 195 by Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, which provides a framework for analysis at too high a level of abstraction. In th......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
-
Construction & Infrastructure - What's News - 17 July 2012
...estopped from denying binding sub-contracts – Whether restitutionary quantum meruit available - Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Limited [2008] HCA 27; (2007) 232 CLR 635 considered and applied - Milestone dates for progressive completion of stages of works not agreed – Whether milestone dates......
-
Contract Trumps Unjust Enrichment - Building Dispute Escalates to High Court
...18 June 2008, the High Court delivered an important decision in Lumbers -v- W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (2008) HCA 27. The decision is of importance in the building particularly in entering into building contracts and also has wider commercial significance. The Facts The case i......
-
Court Reviews Quantum Meruit Claims
..."that is a step which the High Court alone can take". The High Court's decision in Lumbers -v- W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2008] HCA 27 did support the owner's position. The restitution claim considered in the High Court case was a novel claim, made by a party which had no con......
-
Contract Defeats Unjust Enrichment Claim
...v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2008] HCA 27 In the recent decision of Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2008] HCA 27, the High Court held that respondent, W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (Builders), had no right to claim payment from Lumbers for work done or money spe......
Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
-
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, vols.1-2.
...156 [151] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ). (57) See, eg, Birks, Unjust Enrichment, above n 28, 9-10, 151-2. (58) (2008) 232 CLR 635, 663 [79] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). See also at 654-5 [46] (Gleeson (59) See, eg, Andrew Burrows, The Law of Restitution (L......
-
Restitution
...relying on leading Commonwealth cases of Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v Creditcorp Ltd[1994] 1 WLR 161, Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd(2008) 232 CLR 635 and MacDonald Dickens & Macklin v Costello[2012] QB 244. The facts of the case are complex, but the gist that is relevant to the restituti......
-
UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN AUSTRALIA: WHAT IS(N'T) IT? IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL REASONING AND PRACTICE.
...in 'gathering] up' the law's 'reasons': Birks, Unjust Enrichment (n 11) 274. (34) See, eg, Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) (2008) 232 CLR 635, 665 [85] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) ('Lumbers'); Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 246 CLR 498, 515 [29] (French CJ, Crennan ......
-
THE CASE AGAINST THE EQUITABLE LIEN.
...(206) Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co (1886) 34 Ch D 234, 248. See also Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) (2008) 232 CLR 635, 663 [80] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel (207) For a neat illustration of this principle, see Brand v Chris Building Co Pty Ltd [1957] VR 625, 62......
Request a trial to view additional results