Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Builder Pty Ltd & Anor
Case
•
[2018] QDC 218
•12 November 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Builder Pty Ltd & Anor [2018] QDC 218
[2018] QDC 218
12 November 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Hennessey Builder Pty Ltd and another party for damages for breach of contract and/or restitution of sums paid under a building contract. The central issue in the case was whether the building contract included work for which the first defendant was unlicensed. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Chapel that was to be constructed had a rise in storeys of two, which would render the first defendant's actions unlicensed under the Building Code of Australia. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of all sums paid under the contract if the first defendant undertook unlicensed work, and whether the adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) for payment of sums due under the contract was invalid if the first defendant undertook unlicensed work.
The court examined the terms of the building contract and the Building Code of Australia to assess the scope of work that the first defendant was licensed to perform. It was determined that the Chapel had a rise in storeys of two, which required a licence that the first defendant did not hold. Consequently, the first defendant's actions were deemed unlicensed. Given this finding, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of all sums paid under the contract as the first defendant had undertaken unlicensed work. Furthermore, the adjudication for payment of sums due under the contract was declared invalid due to the unlicensed nature of the work.
Pending the parties' submissions on the form of orders, the court will issue directions to give effect to these reasons.
The court examined the terms of the building contract and the Building Code of Australia to assess the scope of work that the first defendant was licensed to perform. It was determined that the Chapel had a rise in storeys of two, which required a licence that the first defendant did not hold. Consequently, the first defendant's actions were deemed unlicensed. Given this finding, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to restitution of all sums paid under the contract as the first defendant had undertaken unlicensed work. Furthermore, the adjudication for payment of sums due under the contract was declared invalid due to the unlicensed nature of the work.
Pending the parties' submissions on the form of orders, the court will issue directions to give effect to these reasons.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Restitution
-
Unlicensed Work
-
Quantum Meruit
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessey Building Pty Ltd [2022] QCA 232
Cases Citing This Decision
22
CJM Innotrack Pty Ltd v Liang & Wang
[2022] QCAT 53
Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd
[2021] QDC 81
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
1
Johnson v Clancy
[2010] NSWSC 1301
Dart Holdings Pty Ltd v Total Concept Group Pty Ltd
[2012] QSC 158