Warning: Undefined array key "options" in /home/customer/www/doylesarbitrationlawyers.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/theme-builder/widgets/site-logo.php on line 123
ABB Power Generation v Chapple & ORS - Doyles Arbitration Lawyers
ABB Power Generation v Chapple & ORS

ABB Power Generation v Chapple & ORS

ABB POWER GENERATION LTD V CHAPPLE & ORS [2001] WASCA 412

Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal – 14 December 2001

FACTS

ABB Power Generation Ltd (‘ABB’) was engaged to supply a piece of industrial equipment known as an “electrostatic precipitator”. ABB entered into a subcontract with CIS to clad the precipitator with insulating lagging. CIS in turn engaged a business, Freemantle Scaffolding, carried on by Mr Chapple (‘Chapple’), to erect scaffolding around the precipitator so as to enable CIS to install the lagging. Chapple had no contractual relationship with ABB. ABB later notified Chapple that it wished to design and build the precipitator in such a way that tubular scaffolding, which is slower and more expensive to erect, would be appropriate and that other specialized scaffolding work would also be necessary. During the course of the construction of the scaffolding, there were conversations on site between ABB and Chapple, during which ABB gave instructions to the effect that the extra work was necessary, and that questions of payment would be addressed later. As a consequence of the instructions, Chapple incurred greater expense than it had allowed in its contract with CIS in carrying out the additional work.

Chapple issued proceedings against ABB upon a quantum meruit, the Supreme Court holding that Chapple was entitled to the reasonable cost of the work. ABB appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Chapple was entitled to claim upon a quantum meruit.

FINDING

To continue reading this content, please complete the form below

End