Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue - [2025] QCAT 192

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue[2025] QCAT 192

Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue[2025] QCAT 192

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] QCAT 192

PARTIES:

jacob joel samios

(applicant)

TABITHA MAY SAMIOS

(applicant)

v

THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR207-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

13 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Carrigan

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the Commissioner of State Revenue made on 25 March 2022 is confirmed.
  2. The Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal by Jacob Joel Samios and Tabitha May Samios on 23 May 2022 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT – whether eligibility criteria met – whether income test is to be applied as a single applicant or as joint applicants – where Commissioner has no discretion 

First Home Owner Grant and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld), s 25Q(2), s 35Q(3), s 59, s 60(2)(a), s 60(2)(b), s 60(3)

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 15, s 24, s 31, s 48, s 58(1)(a), s 58(1)(b), s 58(2)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 20, s 24

Addison-Williamson v Commissioner of State Revenue (Unreported, GAR208-22, 21 November 2023)

Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121

Faizer v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 135

Jacobs v The Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] QCAT 291

McCarthy & McCarthy v Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] QCAT 342

Rowe v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 46

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

N Khavari of Counsel instructed by C Maxza and R Donges for the Commissioner of State Revenue

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Jacob Joel Samios and Tabitha May Samios (‘the Applicants’) have applied for a review by the Tribunal of the Commissioner of State Revenues (‘the Commissioner’) decision dated 25 March 2022 to confirm an earlier decision the Applicants are not entitled to receive the HomeBuilder Grant (‘the Grant’) of $25,000.00.
  2. [2]
    The basis for the Commissioner’s decision was that the Applicants had not satisfied the income test eligibility criteria in Criterion 5 of the Administrative Direction.
  3. [3]
    The issue is whether the Applicants eligibility is to be assessed on the basis of income tests for a “single applicant” or as “joint applicants”.

Background Facts

  1. [4]
    On 23 July 2013, the residential property the subject of these proceedings was acquired and Jacob Joel Samios was registered as the sole proprietor.
  2. [5]
    On 23 December 2020, an “Online” Application for a HomeBuilder Grant was made to the Commissioner in the name of Jacob Joel Samios.
  3. [6]
    Also on 23 December 2020, both Applicants entered into a building contact with a Builder, Peter Viggers, to complete renovations and extensions to the residential property.
  4. [7]
    On 6 January 2022, the Applicants received notification from the Revenue Officer, for the Commissioner, that the “Online” Application for the Grant had not satisfied the required eligibility under criteria 5 of the Administrative Direction and accordingly the Grant was refused. The notification advised both Applicants that the supporting documentation recorded Jacob Joel Samios as the sole registered freehold owner of the property at the date of the contract with the Builder. As a consequence, the income test for the Grant required that the Application for the Grant be considered on the basis of the income of Jacob Joel Samios for the 2019 and 2020 financial years as a “single applicant” rather than applying the income test for “joint applicants”. Financial documentation provided by the Applicants recorded that the taxable income of Jacob Joel Samios exceed the income test stated in the Administrative Direction. Accordingly, the Applicants were ineligible for the Grant (‘the original decision’).
  5. [8]
    On 10 January 2022, the Applicants notified the Commissioner that they objected to the refusal to pay the Grant and required an internal review of the original decision.
  6. [9]
    An internal review was then conducted and on 25 March 2022 the Senior Review Officer, for the Commissioner, made the decision to confirm the original decision to refuse payment of the Grant as the Applicants had not satisfied the income test in criterion 5 of the Administrative Direction (‘the review decision’).
  7. [10]
    On 23 May 2022, the Applicants filed in the Tribunal an Application to review the decision of the Commissioner made on 25 March 2022. The grounds relied upon by the Applicants for the review included:
    1. the application was treated as one for an individual and not one as a couple;
    2. the Applicants satisfy the income test for “joint applicants” in the Administrative Direction;
    3. the Administrative Direction does not state that both applicants must be individually listed on the freehold title;
    4. the Administrative Direction does state a number of other eligibility criteria that pertain to the Application as a couple;
    5. the Applicants meet all other eligibility criteria within the Application and would use the Grant in the way in which it was intended to be used.

Tribunals Jurisdiction

  1. [11]
    The Tribunals review jurisdiction is conferred by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made by another entity under that Act.[1] 
  2. [12]
    A person who has objected to a Commissioner’s decision and is dissatisfied with the Commissioner’s decision on that objection may apply, within 60 days, after the objector receives notice of the Commissioner’s decision may apply in accordance with the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a review of the decision.[2] The Applicants received the Commissioner’s decision on 25 March 2022confirming the original decision and filed the proceedings in the Tribunal on 23 May 2022 which was within the 60 day period.
  3. [13]
    The Applicants have objected to the original decision of the Commissioner and have now received the further decision (the review decision) made by the Commissioner following their objection..
  4. [14]
    Accordingly, in these proceedings the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application to review the decision and the Grants Act is the “enabling” Act for the purposes of these proceedings.   
  5. [15]
    The Tribunal may exercise its review jurisdiction if a person has applied to the Tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision.[3] In these proceedings the Applicants have filed an Application to review a decision made by the Commissioner on 23 May 2022. The Tribunal can proceed to exercise its review jurisdiction in these proceedings. 
  6. [16]
    The Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[4] However, the Tribunal must:
    1. hear and decide the review of the decision by considering the evidence before the Commissioner when the decision was made, unless the Tribunal considers it necessary in the interests of justice to allow new evidence;[5]
    2. decide the review of the Commissioners decision in accordance with the same law that applied to the making of the original decision;[6] and
    3. the grounds on which the Application for review is made are limited to the grounds of the relevant objection to the original decision unless QCAT otherwise directs.[7]
  7. [17]
    The function of the review jurisdiction is for the Tribunal to:[8]
    1. confirm or amend the decision under review; or
    2. set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
    3. set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision- maker for the decision, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate.

The HomeBuilder Statutory Scheme

  1. [18]
    The Scheme for the HomeBuilder Grant commenced during the Covid-19 pandemic to be administered by the States and Territories of Australia in accordance with the National Partnership Agreement (‘NPA’) on HomeBuilder.
  2. [19]
    The Grants Act establishes in Queensland the legislative scheme in relation to the making of the Home Building Grant.[9]
  3. [20]
    Entitlement to a Grant is established if the applicant or joint applicant comply with the eligibility requirement for the Grant under the Administrative Direction.[10] Specifically, the eligibility requirement is stated in these terms;

An applicant for a home builder grant is entitled to be paid the grant if—

the applicant or, for a joint application, each of the applicants, complies with the eligibility criteria for the grant under the home builder direction…

The reference to the “home builder direction” is a reference to the Administrative Direction.

  1. [21]
    The Administrative Direction has the force of law.[11] That Direction provided that for a “substantial renovation contract” (which is the case in these proceedings) eligibility is stated in these terms:

Each of the following transactions are eligible transactions for payment of the grant:

a substantial renovation contract made by the freehold owner of a home in Queensland if the contract commencement date is between 4 June 2020 and 31 March 2021 (both dates inclusive), and the construction commencement date is on or after the contract commencement date and within 18 months of the contract commencement date. 

  1. [22]
    The relevant eligibility criteria in the Administrative Direction also includes the following:[12]

Criterion 1a: Single applicant must be the registered freehold owner of the property

If the application relates to a substantial renovation contract, the applicant must be the sole registered freeholder owner of the property at the contract commencement date.

Criterion 1b: Joint applicants must be spouses and be the registered freehold owners of the property 

A joint application can only be made by two persons if they are spouses as at the contract commencement date of the eligible transaction.

If an application relates to a substantial renovation contract, the joint applicants must be the only registered freehold owners of the property at the contract commencement date.

Criterion 5: Income tests 

If there is a single applicant, the applicant must have a taxable income for either of the 2018–19 or 2019–20 financial year of less than $125,000.

If there are joint applicants, the combined taxable income for both applicants for either the 2018–19 or 2019–20 financial year must be less than $200,000.

Should the Income Test be for a “single applicant” or “joint applicant”

  1. [23]
    The evidence is that the sole registered proprietor of the residential property, the subject of these proceedings, has at all material times since 23 July 2013 been Jacob Joel Samios. The current title search for Lot 55 on RP 71389 dated 23 December 2020 records Jacob Joel Samios as the proprietor.[13]
  2. [24]
    As to why that residential property was not registered in joint names is unexplained on the evidence save for the possible explanation that the Applicants were not married until 14 June 2014, sometime after the purchase of the residential property.[14] 
  3. [25]
    On 23 December 2020, the Applicants both signed the QBCC Level 1 Renovation, Extension and Repair Contract with the builder, Peter Viggers to undertake building work to raise the house on the residential property and to build under it in accordance with the plans. The contract price was $370,000.00 which included a fixed price component of $312,200.00 and the balance comprising allowances for prime cost items and provisional sums.[15] The contract did not provide for a specific starting date for building work[16] but the “Online” Application for the Grant provided that construction was to commence on 6 July 2021.[17]
  4. [26]
    Also on 23 December 2020 an “Online” Application for the Grant was made. [18] That Application provided that the applicant for the HomeBuilder Grant was Jacob Joel Samios.[19] The Application made no reference to Tabatha May Samios being a joint Applicant. The sole Applicant for that Application was Jacob Joel Samios in his own personal capacity. There is subsequent correspondence with the Commissioner stating that it was a joint application and the details relating to both Applicants were provided to the Commissioner prior to the original decision. 
  5. [27]
    The “Online” Application for the Grant requested information which was provided in the following terms:

Are you or will you be the sole owner of the property, as listed on the title? YES.

Are you or will you be listed on the title as joint owners of the property as a couple? NO.

Is your:

taxable income less than $125,000 for either the 2018–19 or 2019–20 financial year (if applying as an individual)?  

combined taxable income less than $200,000 for either the 2018–19 or 2019–20 financial year (if applying as a couple)?

The “Online” Application for the Grant responded “YES” without identifying whether the response applied to individual income or income as a couple.

  1. [28]
    The Income Tax documentation for the Applicants in the financial years 2018–19 and 2019–20 was in evidence when the application for the Grant was determined by, or on behalf of, the Commissioner. That documentation established that:
    1. for Jacob Joel Samios his taxable income exceeded the threshold of $125,000 for the 2018–19 and the 2019–20 financial years;[20]
    2. for Tabatha May Samios her taxable income did not exceed the threshold of $125,000 for the 2018–19 and the 2019–20 financial years;[21] and
    3. the combined taxable income of Jacob Joel Samios and Tabatha May Samios did not exceed the threshold of $200,000 for the 2018–19 and 2018–20 financial years.  
  2. [29]
    The Administrative Directions that were in operation at the time of the “Online” Application for the grant were those dates and 30 July 2020 and subsequently amended.[22] The contract with the builder was for a contract price below the maximum threshold of $750,000.[23] The contract with the builder was for a substantial renovation. Against this background the Administrative Direction provided where the “Online” Application for the Grant relates to a substantial renovation contract:
    1. a single applicant must be the sole registered freehold owner of the property as at the contract commencement date;[24]
    2. joint applicants must be spouses and the only registered freehold owners of the property as at the contract commencement date;[25]
    3. income test for a single applicant or joint applicants for the 2018–19 and the 2019–20 financial years is that;[26]
      1. for a single applicant the taxable income is less than $125,000; and
      2. for joint applications the combined taxable income for both applicants is less than $200,000.
  3. [30]
    The evidence before the Tribunal and which was also available at the time of the Commissioners earlier decisions, is that:
    1. The residential property, the subject of these proceedings, was at all relevant times in the sole ownership of Jacob Joel Samios. It was not at any material time jointly owned by him and his wife, Tabatha May Samios.
    2. As at the contract commencement date the residential property was owned solely by Jacob Joel Samios.
    3. The contract with the builder was for a substantial renovation with a contract price less than the maximum of $750,000.00.
    4. The “Online” Application for the Grant was made in the sole name of Jacob Joel Samuels. A “Joint” Application in both names was not made by the Applicants but as has already been referred to, subsequent correspondence with the Commissioner treated that application as a Joint Application.
    5. The taxable income of Jacob Joel Samios in the 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial years was in excess of the maximum amount of $125,000. The taxable income of Tabatha May Samios was less than the maximum amount of $125,000. The joint taxable income of both Applicants was less than the maximum amount of $200,000.
    6. In all other respects the “Online” Application for the Grant satisfied the criteria in the Administrative Direction for a grant of $25,000.00. 
  4. [31]
    The Tribunal accepts the evidence set out in the preceding paragraph in (a) to (f) inclusive and makes findings in accordance with that evidence. However, that evidence establishes that Jacob Joel Samuels was the registered proprietor of the residential property, the subject of these proceedings, at the contract commencement date. While the contract with the builder was made in the joint names of both Applicants, nevertheless as at the commencement date of the contract, Tabatha May Samios was not a registered proprietor of the residential property.  At no material time could she be a “joint applicant” in accordance with the criteria specified in the Administrative Direction. The only person who was qualified to be an applicant according to the Administrative Direction was Jacob Joel Samios. The Tribunal has already made a finding of fact that for the 2018–19 and 2019–20 financial year the taxable income of Jacob Joel Samios exceeded the maximum taxable income of $125,000 provided for in the Administrative Direction.[27] While the “Online” Application for the Grant made by Jacob Joel Samuels did satisfy criteria for the HomeBuilder Grant, it failed to satisfy criterion 5 requiring a taxable income of less than $125,000 in either of the 2018–19 or 2019–20 financial years. Accordingly, as the income test criteria has not been satisfied in the Administrative Direction, Jacob Joel Samios is not entitled to the HomeBuilder Grant.    

The Grounds of the Applicants Objection to the Original Decision

  1. [32]
    Following the original decision of 6 January 2022, the Applicants were dissatisfied with that decision and lodged an objection dated 10 January 2022 with the Commissioner requiring an internal review of that decision raising the following grounds:[28]
    1. They had “managed to speak with an agent on the 137 468 number” and followed their advice to continue with the application as the sole applicant but to upload all relevant documents for both applicants and they requested and received a pre-approval letter “prior to going all in and sinking everything we had into this project”.
    2. They were not aware they could add a person to the title of the property. This can be done by completing a Form 1 and the Form 24. Had the right advice been given at the time of the application this change of registered ownership could’ve been completed at that time.
    3. They plan to use the HomeBuilder Grant in the exact way that it was intended for the construction renovation of their home. They are now left with an unfinished project as a result of unprecedented increases to materials and construction costs and/or delays.

Agents Advice and Pre-Approval Letter

  1. [33]
    The advice from the agent in the HomeBuilder team was sought on 23 December 2020.[29] The Applicants state:

We were having some trouble with the Grant application online, specifically around completing the application as a couple and more specifically about Tabatha not being individually listed on the Freehold Title. As a result, we called the 137 468 number and spoke to an agent, who instructed us to upload all relevant documentation to that of a couple and follow the application with an email to the Home Builder team.

  1. [34]
    On 23 December 2020, the Applicants sent an email following that call with the agent in which they stated:

…the agent instructed me to send an email to this address, as they were unable to confirm the timing or process for Grant approvals or pre-approvals, etc.

I have signed a building contract (subject to finance) and I am currently in the process of securing lending. I had read that it is possible to seek pre-approval for the HomeBuilder grant but we need to know the timing of this, as it will be important part of the process. I have lodged the application online including all supporting documentation but was obviously unable to supply proof of commencement and payment, as the contract is subject to finance.

I note that the application is in relation to our family home and the application will be as a couple but the title search and current home loan, etc, are only in my name. I selected the relevant options on the application but uploaded all of my wife supporting documentation as additional files.

  1. [35]
    The Commissioner has provided evidence containing the recording of the phone call from phone number 0408 125 700 to an officer of Shared Services Queensland on 23 December 2020.[30] The Commissioner correctly states that this recording is new evidence and was provided to the Tribunal by way of the Commissioner using its best endeavours to assist the Tribunal. At the hearing neither party referred to or required the recording to be played or otherwise used as part of the proceedings. The Tribunal has not exercised its discretion in the circumstances to include the recording as part of the evidence in these proceedings.[31]
  2. [36]
    Conditional pre-approval for the Grant was received by the Applicants on 19 February 2021.
  3. [37]
    The Applicants submit that if they had been given the correct advice, they “could have avoided this process and taken steps to ensure that they were entitled to receive the Grant.”
  4. [38]
    The renovations to the residential property commenced on 17 April 2021 and were completed on about 22 December 2021.
  5. [39]
    The Applicants say that the Administrative Direction is not clear and does not state that they must both be individually listed on the freehold title. The Applicants consider that the Grant eligibility should be correctly assessed as a couple and have a taxable income of less than $200,000 for either of the 2019 or 2020 financial years. They say they met that income threshold.
  6. [40]
    The Commissioner relies on Tribunal authorities establishing that there is no discretion in the Commissioner to depart from the scheme as provided in the Administrative Directions. The Commissioner refers to the decision in Jacobs v The Commissioner of State revenue in which Member King-Scott stated:[32]

The Commissioner is not given a discretion to consider other factors but must decide the matter in accordance with the Direction.

  1. [41]
    This statement about the extent of the Commissioners discretion is also consistent with the provisions of the Grants Act which provides that an application for a home build grant must comply with the home builder direction.[33] That Act also provides as follows:[34]

The applicant or, for a joint application, each of the applicants, complies with the eligibility criteria for the grant under the home builder direction.

  1. [42]
    The effect of these provisions makes compliance with the home builder direction (the Administrative Direction) paramount. The provisions do not leave any scope for the exercise of a discretion in relation to factors outside of those contained in the Administrative Direction.  Accordingly, the Tribunal refuses to exercise the discretion sought by the Applicants in their submissions in these proceedings except with those involving the application of the terms of Administrative Direction.
  2. [43]
    The Applicants also seek to rely on communications with an advisor in the HomeBuilder team as a result of a telephone call. So far as the evidence of that conversation is concerned, it is not readily apparent to the Tribunal that the advisor informed the Applicants that a sole registered proprietor such as Jacob Joel Samios would qualify for the income test in the Administrative Direction. The Applicants were encouraged to submit their application with supporting documentation including that of Tabatha May Samios which in the circumstances would indicate that that material would be assessed in due course and a decision made. In any event, the Commissioner relies upon the submission that any advice given by a customer service officer over the phone is irrelevant when considered in the context of what is required according to the legislation and cannot bind the Commissioner in assessing the application for a Grant. The Commissioner relies upon the Tribunal’s decision in Faizer v Commissioner of State Revenue and the statement from that decision as follows:[35]

No doubt the customer service consultant had a role of providing information to the public about the Grant but at all material times any advice would have been subject to the legislative requirements for the Grant. In the circumstances, it is the legislation and not the advice from a customer service consultant which determines the entitlement to a Grant. To that extent, the advice is irrelevant when considered in the context of what is required according to the legislation. Accordingly, the Tribunal is unable to find on these uncontested facts that the customer service consultant on 19 June 2020 in someway bound the Commissioner, and therefore the State of Queensland, to make a Grant to the Applicants in the sum of $25,000.00.

  1. [44]
    This statement is consistent with the legislative scheme referred to above which makes the home builder direction the relevant authority for the determination of any application for a Grant.
  2. [45]
    The Commissioner provided to the Tribunal at the hearing several cases including Rowe v Commissioner of State Revenue where Acting Senior Member Fitzpatrick stated:[36]

One cannot doubt the unfairness to the Rowes in entering into a construction contract, expecting to be able to access the Grant based on information available at the time the contract was entered, but only later finding out that they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Given that the Federal Government plainly intended access to the scheme to be limited that should have been apparent to people when entering contracts, not just when making application for the Grant.

However, in conducting this review I am bound to stand in the shoes of the Commissioner and to apply the law that applied at the time of the decision.   

  1. [46]
    The Commissioner also referred to the Tribunal decisions in Addison-Williamson v The Commissioner of State Revenue[37] and Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske in which Judicial Member Forest SC stated:[38]

I accept that it is the terms of the FHOG Act and the Direction which are the sole source of the eligibility requirements which were to be applied by the Applicant and nothing else.

  1. [47]
    The Tribunal rejects the submissions of the Applicants that in some way the decision on their Application for a Grant is to be determined based upon advice from the Agent rather than reliance upon the Administrative Direction.
  2. [48]
    The Applicants also rely upon the pre-approval letter from the Commissioner dated 19 February 2021.[39] However, the terms of that letter clearly show that it is not a final approval. The letter was written “subject to further information that is required being provided”. Also, the letter stated as follows:

The above does not guarantee approval of your application. A final decision will be made on your application once you have provided all of your supporting documentation.   

  1. [49]
    That letter was by way of the interim correspondence pending a final decision. It contains no relevant decision based upon an assessment of the criteria in the Administrative Direction. It cannot be relied upon in any relevant way to bind the Commissioner to a decision in favour of the Applicants Application for a Grant. The Tribunal rejects this further submission of the Applicants.  

Adding Another Registered Proprietor

  1. [50]
    The Application for the Grant was made at the time of the contract commencement date. At that date, the evidence is that the sole owner of the residential property was Jacob Joel Samios. There were no registered joint owners of the subject property. The Application has to be determined on that basis. 
  2. [51]
    Speculation about adding another registered proprietor to the residential property or about other factors is irrelevant in the circumstances. The decision has to be made in accordance with the relevant facts as at the contract commencement date.
  3. [52]
    The Tribunal rejects the submission that at the relevant time it was open to the Applicants to add a new registered proprietor of the residential property and finds that any decision had to be made on the facts before the Commission as at the date of the commencement of the contract and in accordance with the Administrative Directions.

The HomeBuilder Grant Would be Used the Way it was Intended

  1. [53]
    This submission is in effect dependent upon the Grant being made.
  2. [54]
    Even on the basis of accepting that the Applicants would have used the Grant in the way it was intended, does not overcome the need to comply with the Administrative Direction. Notwithstanding the proper use of the Grant, the Applicants do not comply with the Administrative Direction in the way already discussed.
  3. [55]
    The Tribunal rejects this further submission of the Applicants and finds that the Applicants have not complied with the Administrative Directions for the reasons set out above.

What if both Applicants had made a “Joint Application” for the Grant

  1. [56]
    It is not controversial that at the time the Applicants entered into the building contract the only freehold owner of the residential property was Jacob Joel Samios.
  2. [57]
    On the assumption that both Applicants had made a “Joint Application” for the Grant, that Application would have been considered in accordance with criterion 1b of the Administrative Direction. Their Application would still have related to a substantial renovation contract. Criterion 1b provides:[40]

the joint applicants must be the only registered freehold the owners of the property as at the contract commencement date

  1. [58]
    The evidence clearly establishes that Tabatha May Samios was not at all material times a registered proprietor of the residential property. Even though as “joint applicants” they would have met the income test[41] their application would still be refused as the application would not have complied with the requirements that both of them together must be “the sole registered freehold owner of the property as at the contract commencement date.”[42]
  2. [59]
    The Application for the Grant lodged with the Commissioner on 23 December 2020 should be refused for the above reasons.

Human Rights Legislation

  1. [60]
    The Tribunal must consider the human rights of the Applicants under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HRA’) in reaching a decision in these proceedings.
  2. [61]
    The Tribunal is an entity which acts in an administrative capacity and is bound to comply with the HRA in conducting the review jurisdiction in relation to the Application filed by the Applicants.
  3. [62]
    In considering the provisions of the Grants Act, the Tribunal must, to the extent possible that is consistent with the purposes of the Grants Act, be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the Applicants human rights.[43]
  4. [63]
    The human rights of the Applicant include:[44]
    1. recognition and equality before the law
    2. property rights
    3. fair hearing
  5. [64]
    These human rights have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of its exercise of the review jurisdiction in these proceedings.
  6. [65]
    The Tribunal has made findings that the Applicants Application for a grant of $25,000 under the Grant Act is not compliant with the Administrative Direction and should be refused. This finding can possibly be a limitation on the human rights of the Applicant under the HRA. This limits the Applicants entitlement to a Grant and limits the Applicants equal treatment with other applicants making application for a Grant.
  7. [66]
    However, any such limitation on the Applicants human rights arises from the provisions of the Grants Act and the Administrative Direction. While the Tribunal is required to make a decision that is compatible with human rights and is to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision, the Tribunal can make such a decision if the Tribunal could not reasonably have acted differently or made a different decision because of a statutory provision.[45]
  8. [67]
    The HomeBuilder Grant is administered by the State of Queensland on behalf of the Federal Government in accordance with the NPA on HomeBuilder. The purpose of the NPA includes;
    1. to provide eligible owner-occupiers a $25,000 Grant to substantially renovate an existing home;
    2. to assist the residential construction sector by encouraging renovations this year, boosting confidence in the sector; and
    3. to provide the eligibility criteria for the Grant of $25,000. 
  9. [68]
    The Grants Act creates a legislative scheme in relation to the Grant including persons who are eligible to apply for a Grant and compliance with the Administrative Direction.
  10. [69]
    Any decision under the Grants Act is made in accordance with statutory provisions or the Administrative Decision and is not an arbitrary decision. It is a decision based upon the legislative scheme and is reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13 of the HRA in the light of the purposes of the NPA and the Grants Act. The decision in these proceedings is made in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the legislation and has been interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights as required by s 48 of the HRA. In these circumstances any limitation on the human rights of the Applicants is reasonable and is justified in terms of section 8(b) of the HRA.

Conclusion.

  1. [70]
    For these reasons the decision of the Commissioner made on 25 March 2022 is confirmed.
  2. [71]
    The Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal by the Applicants on 23 May 2022 is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) s 17.

[2]First Home Owner Grant and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Grants Act’) s 59.

[3]QCAT Act s 18.

[4]Ibid s 20.

[5]The Grants Act s 60(2)(a).

[6]Ibid s 60(2)(b).

[7]Ibid s 60(3).

[8]QCAT Act s 24.

[9]The Grants Act pt 3B.

[10]Ibid ss 25Q(2), (3).

[11]Ibid s 25Q(2).

[12]See the Administrative Direction at paragraphs 21-33.

[13]Commissioner’s documents provided pursuant to s 21 of the QCAT Act at page 87.

[14]Ibid page 108.

[15]Commissioner’s documents provided pursuant to s 21 of the QCAT Act at pages 76-77.

[16]Ibid page 77 at Item 5.

[17]Ibid page 74.

[18]Ibid pages 72-75.

[19]Ibid page 73.

[20]Ibid pages 24-34, 45-46.

[21]Ibid pages 35-43, 47-48,104-107.

[22]Ibid pages 129-135, 136-142.

[23]Ibid page 137 at clauses 2, 3, 4.

[24]Ibid page 139 clause 24.

[25]Ibid page 139 clauses 25, 28.

[26]Ibid page 139 clauses 32, 33.

[27]Ibid page 139 clause 32.

[28]Ibid page 18.

[29]Applicants Submissions filed 5 August 2022 at paragraph 2 and 12.

[30]Commissioner letter and USB stick filed on 17 November 2022.

[31]The Grants Act s 60(2)(a).

[32][2022] QCAT 291, [15].

[33]The Grants Act s 25Q(2).

[34]Ibid s 25Q(3)(a).

[35]       [2023] QCAT 135, [29].

[36]       [2023] QCAT 46, [15]-[16].

[37]Unreported decision in GAR208-22 dated 21 November 2023.

[38][2023] QCATA 121, [21].

[39]Commissioner’s documents provided pursuant to s 21 of the QCAT Act at page 67.

[40]Ibid page 139 clause 28.

[41]Ibid page 139 clause 33.

[42]Ibid page 139 clause 28.

[43]HRA s 48(1).

[44]HRA ss 15, 24, 31.

[45]        HRA ss 58(1)(a)-(b), 58(2).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Samios v The Commissioner of State Revenue

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 192

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Carrigan

  • Date:

    12 May 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCATA 121
Cite 2 - [2023] QCATA 121
Jacobs v The Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] QCAT 291
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 291
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 291
McCarthy & McCarthy v Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] QCAT 342
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 342
Rowe v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 46
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 46
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 46
Zaheera Faizer v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 135
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 135
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 135

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.