Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd

In the case of Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd, the primary issue was whether Hennessy Building was entitled to any remuneration for work done on the chapel, given that the contract was unenforceable due to a licensing issue. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal the decision, arguing that the primary judge had misapplied the statutory provisions. The court had to consider whether the contract was unenforceable, whether the applicant was entitled to a refund for the payments made, and whether Hennessy Building was entitled to any remuneration for the work done, considering their carpentry licence. Additionally, the court examined whether the applicant's proposed appeal arguments, which were not raised during the trial, could be considered on appeal.

The court found that the chapel's construction was not within the scope of Hennessy Building's "builder – low rise" licence as it involved Type B construction, which was not authorised by the licence. The court considered the possibility that Hennessy Building's interpretation of the regulation might be supported by additional evidence, but this was not a decisive factor. The court also discussed the broad definition of "building work" and concluded that trade work involved in the construction of a building could constitute "building work" as it contributes to the erection or construction of a building. The court held that Hennessy Building was not entitled to any remuneration for the work done under the unenforceable contract, and the applicant was entitled to a refund of the payments made. The court also found that the applicant's proposed appeal arguments, which were not raised during the trial, could not be considered on appeal.

The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is refused with costs. The court held that the applicant's proposed appeal arguments, which were not raised during the trial, could not be considered on appeal. The court found that Hennessy Building was not entitled to any remuneration for the work done under the unenforceable contract, and the applicant was entitled to a refund of the payments made. The court also considered the possibility that Hennessy Building's interpretation of the regulation might be supported by additional evidence, but this was not a decisive factor. The court held that the primary judge's decision was correct, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.