Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 444-22 (2026)

  Civil action

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §444-22  Civil action.  The failure of any person to comply with any provision of this chapter shall prevent such person from recovering for work done, or materials or supplies furnished, or both on a contract or on the basis of the reasonable value thereof, in a civil action, if such person failed to obtain a license under this chapter prior to contracting for such work. [L 1957, c 305, §1(s 21); Supp, §166A-21; HRS §444-22; am L 1969, c 56, §4]

 

Case Notes

 

  Defendant's motion to dismiss denied; because it was feasible that plaintiff's actions constituted that of a "professional engineer acting solely in [its] professional capacity", it was not apparent that [this chapter] barred plaintiff from bringing lawsuit.  216 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (2001).

  Action to recover under this section not barred when circumstances take matter outside applicability of this chapter.  58 H. 257, 567 P.2d 824 (1977).

  Applicable even if party has knowledge that contractor has no license.  71 H. 175, 785 P.2d 1324 (1990).

  Section permits a contractor, who performs both licensed and unlicensed work, to bring an action to recover payment for the licensed portion of the work.  86 H. 137 (App.), 948 P.2d 558 (1997).

  A contract with an unlicensed contractor is not void ab initio and this section does not bar a member of the public, who is a party to such contract, from bringing suit to recover breach of contract damages from an unlicensed contractor.  92 H. 117 (App.), 987 P.2d 1015 (1999).

  Where genuine issues of material fact existed as to: the services plaintiff provided to defendant that would be a basis for plaintiff's quantum meruit claim; whether plaintiff was required to be licensed under chapter 444 to provide such services; and whether such services that plaintiff rendered would be barred from recovery under this section, summary judgment was not warranted as to plaintiff's claim based on quantum meruit.  126 H. 190 (App.), 268 P.3d 443 (2011).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 268 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2011).
Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 268 P.3d 443 (Haw. App. 2011). · cites it 14× “WBGI does not contest Wagner’s claim that he did extensive work regarding the botanical gardens, but argues that Wagner’s quantum meruit claim is barred by HRS § 444-22 (1993 Repl.) and the doctrine of unclean hands.”
Shultz v. Lujan, 948 P.2d 558 (Haw. App. 1997). · cites it 38× “1 Four days later, the Shultzes filed a complaint for declaratory judgment praying that Lujan be barred from commencing civil action to recover payment for the project pursuant to HRS § 444-22. In response, Lujan wrote to the arbitrator insisting that the arbitration continue.”
Jones v. Phillipson, 987 P.2d 1015 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 26× “In their memorandum, Defendants maintained that (1) they were not estopped from raising the illegality defense because their answer notified Plaintiffs of the intention to rely on the defenses listed in HRCP Rule 8(c); (2) the agreement was “an illegal contract with persons…”
Hiraga v. Baldonado, 31 P.3d 222 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “RELEVANT STATUTES HRS § 444-22 (1993) prohibits an unlicensed contractor from “recovering for work done, or materials or supplies furnished, or both on a contract or on the basis of the reasonable value thereof[.”
Butler v. Obayashi, 785 P.2d 1324 (Haw. 1990). · cites it 8× “The court below, having considered the motion, denied it and dismissed appellant's claim, holding that it was barred by the provisions of HRS § 444-22. We affirm. HRS § 444-22 provides: Civil action.”
Michely v. Honolulu, Ltd., 567 P.2d 824 (Haw. 1977). · cites it 7× “Defendant initially contends that plaintiff’s lack of a contractor’s license at the time the work was performed bars him from recovery pursuant to the provisions of HRS § 444-22 (Supp. 1975). 1 We disagree.”
Wilson v. Kealakekua Ranch, Ltd., 551 P.2d 525 (Haw. 1976). “The contractors’ licensing statute does provide for nonenforceability of contracts in addition to penal sanctions: “§ 444-22 Civil action. The failure of any person to comply with any provision of this chapter shall prevent such person from recovering for work done, or materials…”
Geothermal Resource Grp., Inc. v. Puna Geothermal Venture, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Haw. 2001). · cites it 5× “See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 444-22 (1998). 4 Section 464 does not include a like provision and arguably 5 would not preclude an un-licensed professional engineer from enforcing a valid contract.”
Crescent Custom Homes Maui LLC v. Causey (Haw. App. 2026). · cites it 8× “HRS § 507-49 (2018); see also HRS § 444-22 (2013); Hiraga, 96 Hawai#i at 367, 31 P.”
Tinguely Dev., Inc. v. Markiewicz (Haw. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “HRS § 444-22 (2013) states: Civil action.”
Scherer v. Contractors License Bd., 222 P.3d 466 (Haw. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “HRS § 444-22 does not support Appellants' argument.”
Dist. Council 50, of the Int'l Union of Painters & Allied Trades v. Saito, 216 P.3d 108 (Haw. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “In addition, HRS § 444-22 (1993 & Supp.2008) prevents recovery of the value of materials or services rendered by any person in violation of the chapter and HRS § 444-26 (Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.