Shabbir Gheewalla v Saffana Rasul & Ors

A claimant who provides services may recover on a quantum meruit where the defendant has been enriched and has freely accepted the services. Free acceptance requires knowledge of the services, awareness that payment is expected, and an opportunity to reject them.

In assessing disputed oral agreements made many years earlier, the court should test recollection against documents and known or probable facts, assess overall plausibility and witness consistency, consider the documentary footprint, and draw appropriate inferences from unexplained absence of material witnesses. The absence of documentation and witnesses may strengthen an otherwise available case, but cannot replace proof of the underlying claim.

The claimant sought a one-third share of the profits of a family hotel and property business, alleging two oral consultancy agreements made in 1996 and 2003. He also claimed in the alternative for a quantum meruit for services provided between 30 April 2014 and 31 December 2016.

The contractual claim was brought against the first defendant and, for alleged procurement of breach, against her husband. The second defendant, the claimant’s daughter, had discontinued her claim but accepted that she would remain jointly liable for any award against the first defendant.

The trial concerned liability only. The principal issues were whether the alleged consultancy agreements existed and, if not, whether the first defendant had been unjustly enriched by services freely accepted during the relevant period.

1. Alleged agreements. The claimant failed to prove either alleged oral consultancy agreement. The court assessed the evidence by reference to the dangers of reconstructed memory, contemporaneous documents, known or probable facts, overall plausibility, witness consistency, documentary footprint, and the absence of witnesses who might reasonably have been expected to give material evidence. The evidence supporting a one-third profit share was thin and was outweighed by the lack of a substantial documentary footprint over approximately 20 years, the inherent improbability of the arrangement, and the failure to call material witnesses. The contractual claim therefore failed.
2. Quantum meruit. The alternative claim was based on unjust enrichment. The claimant had to establish enrichment and free acceptance. Free acceptance required that the defendant knew of the services, knew or ought to have known that payment was expected, and had an opportunity to reject them.
3. The relevant services were confined to management of the 51 apartments during the claim period. The claimant’s management work saved the first defendant and the other beneficial owner the expense of appointing someone else and therefore enriched the first defendant. She knew, or should have known, that the claimant was performing that role. His earlier receipt of money or benefits from the business, and the payment of the first defendant’s husband for comparable work, made it unlikely that she believed the claimant expected no payment. By the relevant period she had an effective opportunity to reject the services.
4. The court did not decide whether the second defendant’s knowledge could be attributed to the first defendant, or the precise legal status of the former partnership, because the claim succeeded on the first defendant’s own knowledge and circumstances.
5. The claim against the third defendant for procuring breach was dismissed because no consultancy agreement existed. The quantum meruit claim succeeded in principle. Quantum was remitted to a further hearing, limited to the value of apartment-management services actually provided during the relevant period, assessed by reference to time spent and expert evidence of the expected rate of payment.