Arber v Walls Hand Crafted - [2025] QCATA 104

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Arber v Walls Hand Crafted [2025] QCATA 104

PARTIES:

MALLORY ARBER & RYAN ARBER

(applicants/appellants)

v

WALLS HAND CRAFTED
(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL102-24

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

MCD126-23 (Southport)

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

1.     Leave to appeal is granted.

2.     The appeal is allowed.

3.     The decision of the Tribunal of 21 March 2024 is set aside.

4.     The application MCD126-23 (Southport) is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – BUILDING DISPUTE – FRESH EVIDENCE – ERROR OF LAW – PERFORMANCE – BREACH – JURISDICTION – where respondent held a trade licence as a solid plasterer – where respondent applied a special coating product called microcement to the applicants’ renovated bathroom floor and walls – were dispute about the quality of the respondent’s work – where applicants engaged an alternate contractor to carry out rectification work – where applicants’ sought to recover the costs of rectification from the respondent in the tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction – where applicants’ application dismissed for want of proof – where applicants appeal that decision – where applicants seek to rely on fresh evidence in the appeal – where building dispute between a trade contractor and the home owners – whether fresh evidence admitted – whether evidence available before the hearing – whether a minor civil dispute as defined – where the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application as a minor civil dispute.

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), ss 3, 12, 142(3)(a)(i) and Schedule 3

QueenslandBuilding and Construction Commission Act 1991 s 77

Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2023] QCATA 66.

Chapel of Angels Pty ltd & Ors v Hennessey Building Pty Ltd & Ors [2022] QCA 232.
Clarke v Japan Machines (Aust) Pty Ltd [1984] Qd R 404 at 408
Goldberg t/as Goldberg Constructions v Jogis [2019] QCAT 49.
Lifestyle Resorts Group Pty Ltd v Geoff Burr Painting Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 22.
Lucas v Habul [2020] QCATA 53.
Peter Broadbelt Electrical Pty Ltd v Harrison [2022] QCTA 91.
Terera & Anor v Clifford [2017] QCA 181.

24/7 Plumbing, Drainage & Gas Pty Ltd v PDM Constructions Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 51.

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

This appeal raises two preliminary issues before the substance of the appeal can be considered. Firstly, the admission of fresh evidence. Secondly, whether the Tribunal’s minor civil dispute jurisdiction is enlivened to hear and determine the application, because it is a building dispute. Because the dispute is a building dispute, for the reasons below it could not be determined as a minor civil dispute. To do so is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Arber v Walls Hand Crafted

Details

AGLC: Arber v Walls Hand Crafted [2025] QCATA 104
Case: [2025] QCATA 104
Decision Date: 10 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the applicants, Arber, and the respondent, Walls Hand Crafted, was heard in the tribunal's minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The applicants sought to recover costs for rectification work done to their renovated bathroom floor and walls, which they attributed to the respondent's alleged substandard work in applying a special coating product called microcement. The tribunal dismissed the applicants' application for lack of proof. The applicants then appealed this decision, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that was not presented during the initial tribunal hearing.

The primary legal issues revolved around the admissibility of fresh evidence in the appeal, whether the evidence was available at the time of the tribunal hearing, and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application as a minor civil dispute. The applicants argued that the tribunal erred in dismissing their application for lack of proof and that they should be permitted to introduce new evidence. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the fresh evidence should not be admitted and that the tribunal's decision should be upheld.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the tribunal had erred in its assessment. The court determined that the fresh evidence was indeed available at the time of the tribunal hearing, and the tribunal's dismissal of the application for lack of proof was an error of law. Consequently, the tribunal's decision of 21 March 2024 was set aside, and the application MCD126-23 (Southport) was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the tribunal for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The decision of the Tribunal of 21 March 2024 is set aside.

4. The application MCD126-23 (Southport) is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.