Appeal dismissed: tribunal could not order a homeowner to pay a trader who lost the consumer claim (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

A homeowner engaged a tradesperson to do work on the windows at his home. He paid a deposit of $2,500 for the supply and installation of flyscreen and mesh to screen doors.

After a year the work was still incomplete. The homeowner ended the contract and applied to the Consumer and Commercial Division of NCAT on 25 January 2026 for an order that the tradesperson pay him $1,947.50 for the work that had not been done. The homeowner valued the work that had been completed at $552.50. The tradesperson agreed the work was incomplete and put the value of the work done at $546.00.

At a contested hearing on 8 July 2026 the tribunal ordered the tradesperson to pay the homeowner $1,947.50 immediately. The tradesperson had argued he should not have to refund anything because of a cross claim under a second contract for other work. The tribunal rejected that argument, saying that on that claim he was a trader and the tribunal had no power to hear a trader's debt recovery claim.

The tradesperson appealed. He did not dispute the finding that the work was incomplete or the value put on the completed work. He said the tribunal made a legal error by not giving proper effect to evidence that a second contract existed, under which he had done work and supplied a new security screen door and had not been paid. The homeowner said there was no second contract because he never accepted the quote. Both people represented themselves, at the first hearing and on appeal.

What each side wanted

The homeowner asked for $1,947.50, being the deposit he had paid less the value of the work actually done. The tradesperson accepted the first tribunal's findings about the incomplete work and its value, but argued on appeal that the tribunal was wrong to refuse to consider his cross claim for unpaid work and the cost of a new security screen door under what he said was a second contract. The homeowner's answer was that there was no second contract at all, because he had never accepted the quote.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel dismissed the appeal. The order made on 8 July 2026, that the tradesperson immediately pay the homeowner $1,947.50, stands.

The panel also noted that there was no appeal against the part of the first decision that awarded the homeowner the full amount he had claimed.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The appeal turned on section 79O of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW). That section lets the tribunal, when it decides a consumer claim, make orders including an order that the person who brought the claim pay money to the respondent. The important limit is in the opening words: the tribunal can only make that kind of order where the consumer claim is decided "wholly or partly in favour of" the respondent.

Here the tradesperson was the respondent to a consumer claim and he lost it completely. The tribunal awarded the homeowner every dollar he asked for. Because the claim was not decided even partly in the tradesperson's favour, the condition in section 79O was never met, and the tribunal had no power to order the homeowner to pay the tradesperson anything.

The panel also explained why the second alleged contract made no difference. It was not part of the homeowner's consumer claim. The panel said that if it had been part of that claim, for example if the homeowner had asked for a declaration that he owed the trader nothing under the second contract and the tribunal had found for the trader on that point, then a money order in the trader's favour could have been made and could have offset, in part or in full, the money owed to the homeowner. As the case was actually run, that path was not open. The panel said the first tribunal's statement that it had no power to hear a trader's debt recovery claim was "perhaps expressed too broadly" but was correct in the circumstances.

Because both people were representing themselves, the panel applied the approach from an earlier appeal decision, Cominos v Di Rico, and looked through the stated grounds, the material filed and the first decision to see whether any question of law or basis for leave to appeal could be found. Doing that did not change the result.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how narrow the tribunal's power is to send money back the other way in a consumer claim. The consumer tribunal exists to hear a consumer's claim against a trader. Under section 79O of the Fair Trading Act, a trader can only be paid money in those proceedings if the consumer's claim is decided wholly or partly in the trader's favour, so a trader who loses the consumer claim outright has no route to a money order in that same case, even if the trader says the consumer owes money for something else.

This also shows that an appeal is about legal error, not a second chance to run the case. The tradesperson accepted the findings about the unfinished work and its value, so the only live question on appeal was whether the tribunal had power to deal with his cross claim, and the answer was no. The decision also records the panel's observation that the position might have been different if the second contract had been part of the consumer claim being decided, which is a point about how a claim is framed rather than about who was right on the facts.

For a trader or tradesperson who believes money is owed for work done, the practical step most people take first is a written demand for payment that sets out the work, the amount and a date for payment, before any application to a court or tribunal.

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

Source: Wasley v Worboys [2026] NSWCATAP 340 (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.