The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for additional costs incurred during a home cladding project and granting the respondent homeowner's counterclaim for trespass.
The appellant had significantly underestimated the materials required and sought to rely on a contractual adjustment clause and quantum meruit to recover the extra costs.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the homeowner did not consent to the additional work, the adjustment clause only covered minor changes, and the valid contract precluded a quantum meruit claim.
