On 21 September 2026, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal made interim orders allowing Arise Solar’s contractor licence to continue pending review of a refusal to renew it, or further order. The licence was subject to a condition preventing Arise Solar from entering contracts over $20,000.
Arise Solar Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Customer Service [2026] NSWCATOD 126 concerns the protection available while a licensing dispute is being reviewed. NCAT did not decide whether the renewal refusal was correct or resolve the parties’ dispute about Home Building Compensation Fund (HBCF) insurance.
Why the licence was in dispute
Arise Solar supplies and installs solar panels and batteries. It held a contractor licence in the electrician category and applied to renew it in April 2026, before its scheduled expiry on 13 August. The Secretary refused renewal on 14 July. An internal review completed on 21 August maintained the refusal, although its basis was varied. Arise Solar then sought administrative review and interim orders from NCAT.
The refusal relied on section 20(1)(d) of the Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), concerning the suitability of a close associate with significant influence over the business. The regulator’s concerns included complaints, allegedly uninsured work and the company’s disclosures and governance. Those concerns formed part of the licensing dispute; the interim decision did not finally determine them.
How NCAT could allow the licence to continue
Applying for administrative review does not itself suspend a decision. As NCAT explained, section 60 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) allows it to stay or otherwise affect a decision’s operation to preserve the effectiveness of the review. It must consider affected people’s interests, the administrator’s submissions and the public interest.
The Secretary argued that NCAT could not revive an expired licence or grant a temporary replacement. NCAT considered whether it could limit the continuing effect of the renewal refusal.
That depended on section 42(3) of the Home Building Act. In this case, the timely renewal application and unresolved internal review had allowed the licence to continue beyond its scheduled expiry until the internal review refusal on 21 August. NCAT held that an interim order could prevent the refusal from operating as a final determination for that purpose while the order remained in force. The existing licence could then continue under section 42(3).
The decision turned on the renewal history and the interaction between these statutory provisions. It does not establish a general right to trade whenever a contractor challenges a licensing decision.
Why NCAT granted interim protection
The Tribunal accepted that loss of the licence would cause significant financial and reputational harm. Arise Solar gave evidence about cancelled contracts, stock and rental commitments, and the effect on employees and subcontractors. NCAT also considered the practical difficulties existing customers could face in obtaining rectification and warranty remedies.
NCAT weighed that harm against the regulator’s concerns. The Secretary accepted that the proportion of complaints was not particularly high, and the Tribunal had limited information about their substance and resolution. Although no safety risk from Arise Solar’s practices was suggested, the uninsured work issue weighed heavily in the public interest assessment.
The HBCF insurance question remains open
Arise Solar disputed the alleged insurance obligation. It argued that installing solar panels and batteries was not home building work or, alternatively, that the relevant contract value was confined to the electrical wiring component and excluded the equipment supplied. These were the company’s arguments, not conclusions reached by NCAT.
At paragraph 50, the Tribunal expressly declined to assess the merits of that argument in the interim application. It recognised that the issue could have wider implications for the solar industry and its customers if Arise Solar succeeded.
The condition prohibiting contracts over $20,000 addressed the risk of further uninsured work while that issue remained unresolved. It was a condition on Arise Solar’s licence under the interim orders. The decision did not establish an industry exemption, approve the separation of equipment and labour prices for insurance purposes, or settle when HBCF insurance is required.
What solar businesses can take from the decision
Contractors facing a renewal refusal may need to seek interim relief urgently. Evidence of the effect on existing customers and the business can support an application, but the Tribunal must also address the public interest. Here, a restriction on new contracts helped preserve the practical value of the review while addressing the insurance concern.
A business considering its own position should check its licence conditions and obtain advice on the insurance requirements for its work. Arise Solar’s insurance arguments remained untested in this decision, and its temporary licence protection depended on the particular orders made on 21 September 2026.