Arber v Walls Hand Crafted

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.