Robert Coshott v Michael Lenin [2006] NSWDC 139

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Robert Coshott v Michael Lenin [2006] NSWDC 139

HEARING DATE(S): 01/11/2006 - 02/11/2006 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 11/02/2006

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Neilson DCJ at 1

DECISION: Verdict and Judgment for the defendant; Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs

CATCHWORDS: Recovery of unpaid professional fees - Any claim in contract (whether express or implied) statute barred - Admitted that any claim formerly in quasi-contract (quantum meruit) was statute barred - Claims barred at the latest on 15 July 1998 - Proceedings commenced 27 September 2005, over 7 years later - Claim barred on restitution for unjust enrichment - Held: (a) restitution for unjust enrichment is not a new right of action. (b) restitution for unjust enrichment is the new legal reasoning governing the set of remedies previously rationalised as quasi-contract. (c) the plainitff's right of action was still quantum meruit and was statute barred. (d) a change of judicial reasoning in that area of law formerly known as quasi-contract does not defeat the parliamentary intention behind Limitation Act 1969 section 14(1)(a)

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitation Act 1969

Wasada Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 987 CASES CITED: Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 David Securities Pty Ltd and Others v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516

PARTIES: Robert Coshott (plaintiff) Michael Lenin (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): 4184/05

COUNSEL: Plaintiff in person Mr J.W. Conomos (for the defendant)