The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its construction lien and quantum meruit claims against the respondent landowner.
The trial judge found the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because it did not request the work, which was performed under a separate contract with a third-party purchaser.
The Divisional Court upheld this finding, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error.
The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring the respondent to have caused the deprivation, the claim still failed because the appellant's contract with the third party constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.
