Michael and Erica McKewin t/as MEM Fencing v Payne

The McKewins, trading as MEM Fencing, appealed against an adjudicator's decision that rejected their claim for additional payment against Payne, following the completion of a fencing project. The Adjudicator had ruled that the McKewins' claim was not supported by the contract and evidence provided. The McKewins sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland, arguing that there were reasonably arguable grounds for the appeal.

The legal issue for the Court was whether there were grounds to allow the appeal. The McKewins argued that the Adjudicator had made an error in law and had not properly considered the terms of the contract and the evidence presented. They claimed that the Adjudicator had misinterpreted the contract, which entitled them to additional payment. The Court considered whether the McKewins had shown that there were grounds that were reasonably arguable and whether the appeal had a real chance of success.

The Court found that the McKewins had not demonstrated that there were any reasonably arguable grounds for the appeal. The Court held that the Adjudicator's decision was based on a proper interpretation of the contract and evidence and that the McKewins' arguments did not provide a basis for the appeal. The Court also held that the Adjudicator had not erred in law, and the appeal had no reasonable chance of success. Therefore, the Court dismissed the McKewins' application for leave to appeal.