The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that it was a 'builder' under the applicable consumer protection legislation.
The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not using a quantitative analysis of the work and materials supplied.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's preference for a qualitative or functional test over a quantitative test was not an error of law.
The Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had primary control of the construction and was therefore a builder was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
