Bridge v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

[2003] NSWADT 137

CITATION:	Bridge -v- Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2003] NSWADT 137
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Robert Alfred Bridge RESPONDENT Chief Commissioner of State Revenue
FILE NUMBER:	033032
HEARING DATES:	09/05/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/09/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	06/10/2003
BEFORE:	Needham J - Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	first home owners grant - approval of application - First Home Owners Grant Act - first home owners grant - approval of application
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	First Home Owners Grant Act 2000
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT D Martin, agent
ORDERS:	The decision of the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue to reject the application for a First Home Owners Grant is affirmed.

Application

1 Mr Robert Albert Bridge applied to the Tribunal for review of a decision by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (“the respondent”) disallowing Mr Bridge’s application for a First Home Owners Grant under the First Home Owners Grant Act, 2000 (NSW) (“the Act”). Mr Bridge sought a review of the respondent’s decision, and an order that he be granted a First Home Owners Grant of $14,000.

Facts

2 Mr Bridge purchased a property at 773 Pacific Highway, Belmont South, as tenants in common in equal shares with Gayle Marilyn Turton. The Transfer is dated 30 August 2000 and was registered on 12 September 2000.

3 On 20 June 2002, Mr Bridge applied for a First Home Owners Grant. His application was out of time, but it was nonetheless accepted for consideration by the respondent.

4 The Application Form completed by Mr Bridge reads, on page 2, under the heading “Instructions on how to complete page 3 of this form”:

“All persons who have, or will have a relevant interest in the home must complete an application form by following the instructions below”.
5 Despite Ms Turton’s interest in the property, Mr Bridge was the only applicant.

6 Mr Bridge was asked to provide further information, and did so. He included a letter from Ms Turton to the effect that she did not wish to apply for the grant, and that Mr Bridge would receive the benefit of the grant “because he covers all the criteria necessary”.

7 On 19 September 2002 the respondent wrote to Mr Bridge notifying him that his application had not been approved, because Ms Turton had previously had a “relevant interest” in land within the definition of s 5 of the Act.

8 On 10 November 2002 Mr Bridge wrote to the respondent, objecting to the decision. The respondent referred the objection for independent review, and disallowed the objection by letter of 31 December 2002, on the basis that Ms Turton’s relevant interest in property disqualified both of them for a grant under the Act.

9 Mr Bridge sought review by this Tribunal by application of 30 January 2003, within the sixty day time limit.

Mr Bridge’s submissions

10 Mr Bridge represented himself at the hearing. He submitted strongly that the purpose of the Act was to assist poor persons in purchasing their first home, and that he fitted the criteria of the Act “except for one thing” - that is, that Ms Turton had previously owned property. He submitted that Ms Turton’s interest in the property should be disregarded because she was bankrupt at the time of, or shortly before, purchasing the property at Belmont South. He said, and this was reiterated by Ms Turton’s letter in the respondent’s file, that Ms Turton was not his wife or de facto, and that the reason that they purchased the house together was that neither of them would have been able to raise a loan separately. He further submitted that the Government advertised the First Home Owner Grant Scheme as benefiting “all first home owners”, and that nothing in the advertising indicated that there were conditions attached to the grant.

11 Mr Martin, for the respondent, submitted that the application could only be successful if both owners of the property applied for the grant and if both owners of the property fit the eligibility criteria of the Act. He further submitted that if Mr Bridge were successful in gaining a review of the decision, he was only entitled to $7,000 rather than the $14,000 sought, as the $14,000 grants were applicable to newly built homes. Mr Bridge, while disagreeing with the quantification of his claim, agreed that the property was an existing, not a newly built, property.

Consideration of the Application and the Legislation

12 The Act provides, relevantly:

“ 5. Ownership of land and homes

(1) A person is an owner of a home or a home owner if the person has a relevant interest in land on which a home is built.

(2) Each of the following is, subject to subsection (3), a relevant interest in land:-

(a) an estate in fee simple in the land ...
7. Entitlement to Grant

(1) A first home owners grant is payable on an application under this Act if:

(a) the applicant or, if there are 2 or more of them, each of the applicants compiles with the eligibility criteria ...
11. Criterion 4 - Applicant (or applicant’s spouse) must not have had relevant interest in residential property

(1) An applicant for a first home owner grant is ineligible for the grant if the applicant or the applicant’s spouse has, before 1 July 2000, held:

(a) a relevant interest in residential property in New South Wales ...
14 Application for grant

(1) An application for a first home owners grant is to be made to the Chief Commissioner ....

(2) An application:

(a) must be in a form approved by the Chief Commissioner; and

(b) must contain the information required by the Chief Commissioner ...

15 All interested persons to join in application

(1) All interested persons must be applicants.

(2) An interested person is a person who is, or will be, on completion of the eligible transaction to which the application relates, an owner of the relevant home ...

18 Amount of grant

The amount of a first home owners grant is the lesser of the following:

(a) the consideration for the eligible transaction;

(b) $7,000”.

13 Mr Bridge, effectively, regards himself as “the applicant” for the grant because Ms Turton did not herself make application. It appears that Mr Bridge would have qualified, had he owned the property in his own name, for a grant. He submits, forcefully, that the result of the application should have been no different had he purchased land in his own name or with another person, because he himself would qualify for a grant.

14 The words in s 15(1) of the Act - “all interested persons must be applicants” - mean that even though Ms Turton did not apply, she is deemed to be an applicant for the grant. Thus, the eligibility criteria and relevantly, eligibility criterion 4, must apply to her as well. She does not comply with that criterion, having owned property in New South Wales. The file does not disclose when that property was owned, but Mr Bridge described her ownership of that property as being “20 years ago” and “a long time ago”, which would seem to make it prior to 1 July 2000 (see s 11 of the Act).

15 Thus, Mr Bridge’s application for review of the Chief Commissioner’s decision must fail.

16 Although it is not germane to this application, I agree with the Chief Commissioner’s submission that the proper amount of the grant is $7,000, not $14,000. The $14,000 grants are paid only for special eligible transactions (see ss 13A and 18A) and do not apply for the purchase of the Belmont property.

Orders

17 The application for review is dismissed.