Appeal dismissed: solar installer must still remove system and refund homeowner in full (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

Energy Saving Products Pty Ltd supplied and installed a solar electricity system at the homeowner's property. The homeowner later brought a claim in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). She asked for the system to be removed, a full refund and her associated costs. Her claim relied on the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

On 14 May 2026 the Tribunal found that the company had failed to comply with section 54 of the ACL, which is the guarantee that goods are of acceptable quality. It found this was a 'major failure', meaning a serious failure. It also found that the homeowner had rejected the goods within time. The Tribunal gave detailed written reasons.

The company lodged an appeal on 15 June 2026. This was outside the 28-day period allowed under the Tribunal's rules. A director of the company and the homeowner both appeared in person at the appeal hearing on 28 September 2026. Neither side gave the Appeal Panel a transcript or recording of the original hearing.

What each side wanted

The company asked the Appeal Panel to set aside the original orders. In their place, it wanted orders allowing the remaining issues to be independently assessed and fixed. As an alternative, it asked for the case to be sent back to the Tribunal so it could have a reasonable chance to fix any remaining problems instead of removing the system and refunding. It argued that the outcome was the most severe possible and was not fair and equitable. It said the independent reports showed problems that could be fixed, but did not find that the system had stopped working, was not generating electricity or was beyond repair. It also said too little weight was given to its willingness to keep doing repair work and to pay for any proven loss. It argued that the Tribunal made an error of law by finding a major failure without objective evidence that the system failed to generate electricity. The homeowner opposed the appeal and filed a reply and further submissions and documents.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel made three orders on 8 October 2026: (1) time was extended for the appeal to be lodged; (2) leave to appeal was refused; and (3) the appeal was dismissed. 'Leave to appeal' means permission to appeal.

The result is that the original Tribunal orders stand. Those orders required Energy Saving Products Pty Ltd to remove the solar system, restore an ongoing and safe electrical supply, and make good the homeowner's property. They also entitled the homeowner to a full refund and to be reimbursed for her out-of-pocket costs. The decision text does not state the dollar amounts.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Appeal Panel began by stating the rules for internal appeals at NCAT. An appeal is not a chance for an unhappy party to have a 'second go' at the hearing. A party can appeal as of right only on a 'question of law', which means an error in applying the law. Examples include a hearing that was not procedurally fair, applying the wrong legal principle, or making a finding of fact with no evidence at all to support it. Simply disagreeing with the outcome is not enough.

For any other ground, the appellant needs leave (permission) under clause 12(1) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). To get leave, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a 'substantial miscarriage of justice', meaning a serious unfairness in the result. This must be because the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, or because significant new evidence has come up that was not reasonably available at the hearing. Even then, the Panel can still refuse leave. The appellant must show more than that the Tribunal was arguably wrong.

The company relied on both types of ground. It said the decision was unfair and against the weight of the independent reports. It also said it was an error of law to find a major failure without objective evidence that the system failed at its main purpose of generating electricity. The Panel extended the time to appeal, but the text does not explain why. It then refused leave and dismissed the appeal. The decision text ends before the Panel's reasoning on each ground, so we cannot say exactly why each argument was rejected.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how NCAT treats appeals from consumer claims. If you are in a similar position, it helps to know that the Appeal Panel does not simply rehear the case. A party who loses must point to an error of law, or show a possible substantial miscarriage of justice to get permission to appeal. Arguing that the result was too harsh, or that the business was willing to keep doing repairs, did not lead to a different outcome here. The case also shows that appeals have a 28-day time limit, and an appeal lodged late needs an extension of time.

The original decision is also a useful example of the consumer guarantees in practice. Where the Tribunal found a major failure under the acceptable quality guarantee, and found the consumer rejected the goods in time, it ordered a full refund, out-of-pocket costs and removal of an installed system. It also required the installer to restore a safe power supply and make good the property.

Each case turns on its own facts and evidence. In disputes about faulty goods, most people first set out the problem and what they want in a written demand or notice to the business. If the matter is not resolved, the usual next step is an application to the Tribunal.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and faulty goods and refunds.

Source: Energy Saving Products Pty Ltd v Savchenko [2026] NSWCATAP 315 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.