Zullo Enterprises P/L & Ors v Sutton

[1998] QCA 417

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Building and Construction Law
2. › Licensing
3. › Unlicensed builder
4. › Entitlement to payment
5. › Whether unlicensed builder could recover for work done
6. › Whether quantum meruit claim available
7. › Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42
1. Restitution
2. › Quantum meruit
3. › Illegality
4. › Work performed under contract prohibited by statute
5. › Whether restitutionary claim available where both contract and performance prohibited by statute
6. › Distinction from unenforceability for want of formality
1. Contract
2. › Illegality
3. › Statutory prohibition
4. › Prohibition on formation and performance of contract
5. › Whether contract unenforceable where statute prohibits both undertaking and carrying out of work
6. › Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42(1)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Meaning of 'consideration'
3. › Whether 'monetary or other consideration' limited to agreed contract price or includes restitutionary recovery
4. › Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 (Qld), s 42(3)

Quick Take

An unlicensed builder in Queensland cannot recover the value of building work done in contravention of s 42 of the Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 by any means, including quantum meruit. The word 'consideration' in s 42(3) encompasses all monetary recovery, not merely the agreed contract price. The principle in Pavey & Matthews v Paul does not extend to cases where a statute prohibits both the making of the contract and the performance of the work.