Mead Property Investments Pty Ltd v P&M Galea Pty Ltd

2025/00354050

CONTRACT – in 2018, the appellant, Mead Property Investments Pty Ltd (MPI), was appointed by Mr John Cauchi and Mr Frank Cauchi (Cauchi Parties) as the project manager for a subdivision of property in Box Hill, NSW (Cauchi Land) – the Cauchi Land shared a boundary with a property in Rouse Hill acquired by the respondent, P & M Galea (PMG) (PMG Land), and also with property owned by Mr Sevario Polistina and Mr David Polistina (Polistina Land) – following negotiations, the Cauchi Parties and PMG executed a deed providing for a land swap and the sharing of development costs to facilitate the subdivision of the Cauchi Land and the PMG Land – MPI paid various expenses, costs and fees for works associated with the subdivision – after the registration of the subdivision, MPI sought a contribution from PMG for the payment of those sums –PMG denied liability for the costs sought by MPI – at first instance, MPI sought to recover a portion of the costs it had outlaid in relation to the subdivision from PMG, submitting that PMG was unjustly enriched by MPI’s work – PMG filed a cross-claim for alleged overpayments made under the land swap deed – the primary judge held that the claims for restitution based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit had not been made out, as MPI did not prove that PMG had expressly or impliedly requested MPI to perform any work or that there was a promise to pay MPI in relation to the work – the primary judge also held that the cross-claim was not made out – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that PMG was liable to MPI in restitution for unjust enrichment, in a sum representing reasonable compensation for the works rendered and payments made – whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that PMG’s free acceptance of the benefit of the work performed and payments made by MPI was sufficient to give rise to liability in restitution for unjust enrichment – whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was necessary for PMG to have known the precise identity of MPI for the purpose of giving rise to liability to make restitution for unjust enrichment – whether the primary judge erred in finding that PMG did not expressly or impliedly request the appellant to do any work.

Mead Property Investments Pty Ltd v P & M Galea Pty Ltd [2025] NSWDC 323