The Court refused leave to appeal under s 83(1) of the CAT Act from an NCAT Appeal Panel decision concerning a builder's entitlement to extensions of time under a building contract, holding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise genuine questions of law but rather sought to re-agitate factual findings about EOT entitlements. The Court reaffirmed that invoking labels such as 'constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction' or 'unreasonableness' does not suffice to convert factual challenges into questions of law for the purposes of s 83, and that an applicant must demonstrate more than that the Appeal Panel was arguably wrong — ordinarily requiring an issue of principle, a question of general public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.