The claimant, having been successful in a tender process for the carrying out of coastal reclamation work which had been arranged by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Works of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, signed a purported contract with the Government and proceeded to carry out the work over a four-year period. It was paid the contract price but claimed for additional work done which it said had reasonably been required for the fulfillment of the contract. The Government refused such payments on the ground that the purported contract had been void in law because the contract price was of an amount which only the Central Tenders Board was authorised by statute to enter into. The claimant brought proceedings against the Attorney General, representing the Government, claiming payment for the excess work done on the basis either of breach of contract, in that the Permanent Secretary had authority to enter into the contract on behalf of the Government, or by way of quantum meruit under the law of unjust enrichment for the reasonable value of services rendered and materials supplied. The judge held that the Permanent Secretary did not have authority to enter into the contract and had acted ultra vires the provisions of the Central Tenders Board Act and regulations thereunder, thus precluding any contractual claim, but that since the state had been unjustly enriched, the claimant was entitled to recompense by way of quantum meruit, calculated by an independent expert. The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal.
On the Attorney General’s further appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. It was established law that even where the necessary elements of a restitutionary claim in the law of unjust enrichment had been shown, namely that the defendant had been enriched, that the enrichment was at the claimant’s expense, and that the enrichment at the claimant’s expense was unjust, a claim would nevertheless be defeated where it would stultify a relevant statutory policy. For example, where it would be inconsistent with the express provisions of a statute, or its clear intention, to render a contract void in specified circumstances. The intent of the Central Tenders Board Act was to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in the awarding of Government contracts by rendering contracts of a specified value void unless awarded by the Central Tenders Board. However (Lord Briggs JSC dissenting), the claimant’s restitutionary quantum meruit claim did no more than seek to reverse an unjust enrichment following a public tender process where it had been unaware of the Permanent Secretary’s lack of authority, rather than to enforce a void contract. Hence it did not stultify the Act’s intent. Accordingly, although the judge had correctly held that the contract had been void, the claimant had established the necessary elements of its restitutionary claim and the judge’s order would stand (paras 17–18, 20–21, 23–24, 32–35, 37–38, 41).
Thomas Roe KC (instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP) for the Attorney General.
Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Anand Singh, Mandavi Tiwary, Vijaya Maharaj and Michael Rooplal (all of the Bar of Trinidad and Tobago) (instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP) for the claimant.