Saye v Stam

In the case of Saye v Stam, the applicant had engaged a master builder to inspect a property prior to purchase. The matter before the tribunal was whether the inspection report identified all defects in the property. The master builder had previously been involved in mediation between the applicant and the vendor. The tribunal declined to accept the report, in part because the master builder was not available for cross-examination. The applicant sought leave to appeal the tribunal's decision. The central legal issue was whether the tribunal erred in refusing to accept the report and, if so, whether this constituted a sufficient ground for leave to appeal.

The court found that the tribunal did not err in law in refusing to accept the master builder's report. The tribunal's decision was based on the unavailability of the report's author for cross-examination, a factor that the court found to be a legitimate consideration. The tribunal's decision was within its jurisdiction, and no error of law was made. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant did not establish that the tribunal's decision constituted a sufficient ground for leave to appeal. The court emphasised the importance of the tribunal's ability to assess the credibility and reliability of evidence, including expert reports, and that the tribunal's decision was not shown to be palpably wrong or unjust.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court did not find that the tribunal's refusal to accept the master builder's report, based on the absence of cross-examination, amounted to a substantial injustice or a manifest error of law. The court concluded that the tribunal's decision was sound and that the grounds for leave to appeal were not made out. The tribunal's decision stood affirmed, and the applicant's appeal was not granted.