Terera v Clifford

The case of Terera v Clifford involves an appeal against the decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and its Appeal Division (QCATA). The applicants, Terera and Bolhar, sought rectification work to be done by Clifford, a tiler. After the work was completed, the applicants complained to the Queensland Building and Construction Commission and refused to pay for the work. The dispute proceeded to QCAT and QCATA, where the applicants were successful only in part and a costs order was made against them. The applicants now seek leave to appeal the QCATA decision and the costs order and require an extension of time in which to appeal.

The legal issues in this case revolve around whether an extension of time is necessary and appropriate for the applicants to appeal the QCATA decision and the costs order, and whether leave should be granted to allow the applicants to bring the appeal. The applicants argue that they had financial difficulties and family tragedies that delayed their ability to file the appeal within the required time frame. They also argue that the QCATA decision was incorrect and that they have a reasonably arguable case of error in the primary decision.

The court examined the principles applicable to an application for extension of time and considered whether good reason for the delay has been shown and whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The court found that the delay was very long and there were unsatisfactory aspects to the explanation provided by the applicants. The court also examined the points raised in the proposed appeal and found that the Appeal Tribunal's finding was that the Member's findings were open on the evidence.

Ultimately, the court found that there being no identified questions of law, the proposed appeal did not satisfy s 150 and would fail for that reason. The application for leave to adduce further evidence was refused, as was the application for leave to appeal the QCATA decision and the costs order. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.