Till v Rose

In the matter of Till v Rose, the applicants engaged the respondent to clear a fence line and install a fence at their property. The agreed price for the work was $26,950, and the applicants paid a deposit of $10,000. Following a dispute, the applicants initiated proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) seeking relief from the balance of the contract price. Both parties were legally represented at the hearing before the adjudicator who found that the respondent had substantially performed the contract and was entitled to the remaining balance of the contract price with minor adjustment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Appeal Tribunal had erred in law by refusing leave to appeal on the basis of a complaint that was not argued before the adjudicator. The applicants contended that the refusal to grant leave to appeal constituted an error of law. The applicants argued that the complaint regarding the adjudicator's decision was significant and warranted further consideration by the Appeal Tribunal. They submitted that the refusal to grant leave to appeal had effectively denied them an opportunity to have the substantive issue properly considered.

The Appeal Tribunal, however, found that the complaint was not properly before them as it had not been argued before the adjudicator. The tribunal held that it was not appropriate to consider new arguments or complaints for the first time on appeal, particularly where the applicants had not demonstrated any grounds for leave to appeal. The tribunal found that the adjudicator's decision was sound and that the applicants had not established a sufficient basis to warrant an appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application.