Chapel Of Angels Pty Ltd Trading As Chapel Of Angels v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd Trading As Hennessy Building ACN 117 587 998 in Its Own Capacity And as trustee for the Hennessy Family Trust & Anor

CHAPEL OF ANGELS PTY LTD TRADING AS CHAPEL OF ANGELS
v
HENNESSY BUILDING PTY LTD TRADING AS HENNESSY BUILDING ACN 117 587 998 IN ITS OWN CAPACITY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE HENNESSY FAMILY TRUST & ANOR
[2021] HCASL 40
S199/2020

This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Fraser JA, Philippides and McMurdo JJA agreeing). The proposed grounds of appeal do not identify any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court. An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

4 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd, trading as Chapel of Angels, initiated legal proceedings against Hennessy Building Pty Ltd, trading as Hennessy Building, in its own capacity and as trustee for the Hennessy Family Trust, along with another party. The primary nature of the dispute revolved around issues arising from a building contract, which led to an application for special leave to appeal by Chapel of Angels against a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the validity and enforceability of certain contractual terms, specifically those related to the building contract. The court had to examine whether the contractual obligations were met, the implications of any alleged breaches, and the enforceability of any penalties or liquidated damages clauses. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the Court of Appeal's decision and whether the proposed grounds of appeal provided sufficient grounds for reconsideration by the High Court.

In delivering its judgment, the court thoroughly reviewed the arguments presented by both parties. The court concluded that the proposed grounds of appeal did not reveal any errors or misconceptions in the Court of Appeal's decision, nor did they provide sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the outcome. The court emphasised that an appeal to the High Court would not have a reasonable chance of success, thereby deeming the application for special leave to appeal inappropriate. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the applicant.

The court's decision was finalised with the issuance of a formal order under rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), which mandates the Registrar to draft, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. This ruling effectively upheld the previous decision of the Court of Appeal and ensured that the matter was concluded without further recourse to the High Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established