Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2025] QCAT 419
•27 October 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] QCAT 419
PARTIES:
LUKE HOLLAND (applicant)
v
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR646-23
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
27 October 2025
HEARING DATE:
14 July 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Bertelsen
ORDERS:
1. The application to review is refused.
2. The decision to refuse the Home Builder grant is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – FIRST HOMEOWNER GRANT – whether commencement of build prior to commencement of written contract – whether homeowner/builder contract constituted by works carried out in 2020/2021 and latterly in 2022 – whether cost of works exceeded $150,000.00.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), s18, s19, s24.
First Homeowners and Other Homeowners Grants Act 2000 (Qld), Part 3B, s25, s60.
Australian Government Administrative Direction – Home Builder Grant Queensland, paragraphs 1 and 4.
Rowe v The Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 46.
Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti [2018] FCAFC 212.
.APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Luke Holland self-represented.
Respondent:
Matthew Paterson instructed by Jeremy Roberts and Courtney McGlachan.
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 21 April 2023 the Commissioner of State Revenue (‘the Commissioner’) by its delegate refused Mr Hollands home builder grant for the reason the transaction (construction) for which the grant was sought was not an eligible home builder transaction. That was because the construction commencement date was not on or after the contract commencement date as required.
Background and Evidence
In his review application filed on 12 September 2023 Mr Holland (accepted by the Commissioner as Luke Holland and Donna Holland for eligibility consideration purposes) said the decision to refuse the grant was based on a discrepancy between the date on the signed building contract and the first invoice (issued). He contended having completed over $150,000.00 (the mandatory threshold build spend) of renovations within the required time period but had been rejected on a trivial technicality namely the written contract being dated after the commencement of renovation works. The Commissioners assessor had ruled that the date of the signed contract was after the first invoice (issued) thereby making him ineligible for a grant. Mr Holland had objected to the decision, but it was confirmed by the Commissioner by notice of decision and statement of reasons of 21 April 2023.
The First Homeowners and Other Homeowners Grants Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act) provided for the operation of the Federal Homebuilder Grant Scheme limited to $25,000.00 in Queensland. Eligibility criteria for a grant were prescribed under the “Australian Government Homebuilder Grant - Queensland” administrative direction (‘the Administrative Direction’). Applicants for a grant were required to satisfy and comply with the direction and all eligibility criteria to receive the grant. The grant scheme for renovations operated in the period 4 June 2020 to 31 March 2021. The provisions of Part 3B of the Act make it clear that the Commissioner has no discretion to authorise payment if the conditions of the direction are not met.
By section 60(2)(a) of the Act the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’) must hear and decide the Commissioner’s decision by way of a consideration of the evidence before the Commissioner when the decision was made, unless QCAT considers it necessary in the interests of justice to allow new evidence. The grounds on which an application for review is made are limited to the grounds of the relevant objection unless QCAT otherwise orders. Mr Paterson referred to the decision Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti[1] where it was stated that the only pleading is the notice of objection (as here) in its original form or as permissibly amended.
[1] Commissioner of Taxation v Cassaniti [2018] FCAFC 212.
Letter from Vardy Building & Renovations Pty Ltd
Mr Holland produced at hearing a letter from Mr Vardy of Vardy Building & Renovations Pty Ltd (Vardy), the builder, dated 11 July 2025 in support of his contention that the building contract had been entered into prior to commencement of building works. Mr Holland evinced no intention of calling Mr Vardy as a witness. Mr Paterson objected as it constituted new evidence at hearing which the Commissioner had neither seen nor had opportunity to reply to let alone cross examine the author. Procedural fairness would demand an adjournment, time for reply and in due course opportunity to cross examine.
Mr Paterson also objected to inclusion of the letter on the grounds of relevance. Mr Hollands review was limited to his grounds of objection in his email of 8 November 2022 which did not contend for any contract other than the written contract dated 13 November 2020. Mr Hollands only ground of objection stated in his email of 8 November 2022 was a harsh technicality. Mr Holland said he guessed it was an administrative error about the time the contract was signed but asserted that “we did enter into a binding agreement on the 27 October and that coincides with the first invoice”.
The Tribunal determined that the builder’s letter was not admissible at hearing. Tribunal directions of 17 April 2024 gave Mr Holland until 6 May 2024 to file his response to the Commissioners statement of reasons and preliminary submissions. He did not do so. Mr Holland never expanded his grounds of objection in the interim fourteen months from May 2024 to July 2025. To allow him to do so now after such a lengthy period of time was unreasonable. The Tribunal goes out of its way to ensure that situations like this do not occur by making directions for the filing and delivery of material/evidence well prior to hearing thus avoiding time wasting adjournments and costs (including cost to the Tribunal). There was no basis here for considering it to be in the interests of justice to allow the builders email but rather prejudice to the Commissioner if allowed.
Further evidence
In a letter dated 18 October 2022 Vardy stated, “This is a letter to confirm that the renovations started at 4 James Street West End on 27 October 2020”.
In cross examination Mr Holland agreed that the renovation quote 192 and scope of works dated 7 September 2020 provided for works (including QBCC insurance) to a total of $145,500.00 plus GST ($160,050.00 inclusive of GST). He agreed that a written contract was entered into on 13 November 2020 but said he had ‘already entered into a binding agreement prior to that, but we signed paperwork on that date”. The written contract recorded a total build/renovation price of $144,000.00 exclusive of GST and $160,000.00 inclusive of GST.
Mr Holland agreed five instalments were paid to Vardy in respect of tax invoices pursuant to Quote 192 dated 27 October 2020 ($7,000.00), 7 November 2020 $13,200.00), 23 November 2020 ($17,569.00), 10 December 2020 $10,000.00), and 20 December 2020 ($33,000.00). An instalment tax invoice nominated as “final instalment for renovations works at 4 James Street West End as per Quote 192” and dated 14 January 2021was paid ($34,632.00). All instalments including the final totalled $115,400.00 and all were inclusive of GST.
Mr Holland agreed that the application for homebuilder grant included a question “On what date was the renovation contract signed” and that the answer was 13 November 2020. Mr Holland agreed the next invoice received from Vardy was on the 7 August 2022 (invoice 255). That invoice recited details of works as “invoice includes Well Hung invoice for windows, joist and decking for front landing, trusses, QBCC insurance, licence fees and measure up for renovations works at 4 James Street West End Qld”. There was no reference to quote 192. Tax invoice 258 of 28 August 2022 stated, “includes labour and materials for renovation works at 4 James Street West End 4814 on carport ad front deck structure”. Tax invoice 265 of 9 October 2022 stated, “includes labour and materials for renovation works at 4 James Street West End 4814 on carport and front entry.
It was put to Mr Holland that the words in Vardy’s invoice of 7 August 2022 referred to measuring up a space before commencing works and before ordering materials. Mr Holland assumed Vardy would “do due diligence and remeasure”. It was suggested that the words in that same invoice “Well Hung invoice for windows, joist, and decking for front landing” were not items listed in the original scope of works; that the original scope of works did not include “works on the front deck” but only to “front entry with new stairs and balustrading as per drawing, including new front door”. Mr Holland said there was a front entry and then stairs and balustrade, which had decking on it. But nowhere did the scope of works quote 192 refer to decking.
It was suggested to Mr Holland that invoice 255 of 7 August 2022 and subsequent invoices were given to the Commissioner because earlier invoices (up to 14 January 2021) did not add up to $150,000.00. Mr Holland said he had an agreement to complete the works and that there were two stages.
Conclusions
The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Commissioner in determining the application. It must arrive at what it considers the correct and preferable decision. Mr Holland (and Donna Holland) were eligible applicants for the purposes of section 25Q(3)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner accepted that the transaction between Mr Holland and Vardy was a substantial renovation contract, and that Mr Holland was the property owner.
The Administrative Direction, compliance with which was mandatory, states at paragraph one that an eligible transaction for payment of grant includes a renovation contract made by an owner (as here) between 4 June 2020 and 31 March 2021 and the construction commencement date is on or after the contract commencement date and within 18 months of the contract commencement date. Here, according to invoices issued pursuant to quote 192 on 27 October 2020 and 7 November 2020 totalling $20,200.00 building/renovation had been undertaken by Vardy. A formal written contract was executed on 13 November 2020 seventeen days after “construction commencement”. It was not disputed that the application for homebuilder grant recorded the date of the renovation contract as 13 November 2020.
Whilst it was contended by Mr Holland that he had “already entered into a binding agreement prior to that, but we signed paperwork on that date”. It is not unusual in construction for there to be initially a scope of works as a precursor followed by a formal contract which becomes the document that governs the contractual relationship between the parties. To describe the formal contract simply as paperwork is erroneous. To the extent that construction commenced prior to contract commencement the transaction is not an eligible transaction.
Paragraph four of the Administrative Direction states that “A transaction that is a substantial renovation contract is not an eligible transaction if the consideration is less than $150,000.00 or more than $750,000.00. The tax invoices issued and paid in the period 27 October 2020 and 14 January 2021 totalled $115,400.00 inclusive of GST well below the threshold of $150,000.00 and to that extent the transaction was not an eligible transaction.
Whilst Mr Holland contended that subsequent invoices commencing 7 August 2022 were really part two of a singular contract arrangement with Vardy doing “due diligence and remeasure” (thus taking monetary consideration over the $150,000.00 threshold) several factors militate against such a conclusion.
None of the latter-day invoices commencing 7 August 2022 reference Quote 192 as did all six invoices issued sixteen to eighteen months prior. Invoice 255 of 7 August 2022 referred to QBCC insurance and measuring up (not remeasuring) for renovations both of which are highly suggestive of, if not confirmatory of, a fresh undertaking by both Mr Holland and Vardy. QBCC insurance is specifically referred to as a costing inclusion on the original renovation quote and again separately on invoice 255 of 7 August 2022. That could of itself be construed as compelling evidence of separate distinct contracts being entered into almost two years apart (13 November 2020 and 7 August 2022).
The invoice of 7 August 2022 referred to “Well Hung invoice for windows joist and decking for front landing”. Whilst Mr Holland said there was a front entry and then stairs and balustrade which had decking on it there was no mention of decking on the scope of works quote 192. If decking had been included, it would have said so. It is reasonable to conclude that decking was a latter-day item to be addressed from 7 August 2022 onwards. The evidence does not reflect a singular two stage contractual arrangement.
Mr Holland’s only ground of objection was that stated in his email of 8 November 2022 which was that he was the subject of a harsh technicality. The decision of Rowe v The Commissioner of State Revenue[2] was proffered to the Tribunal as supporting the view that there was no discretion on the part of the Commissioner to consider unfair circumstances. Harshness was not a relevant consideration.
[2] Rowe v The Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 46 at 49
The $150,000.00 threshold was never reached in the grant schemes operation period or by reference to works carried out in that period.
For the above reasons Mr Holland has not substantiated entitlement to a home builders grant. The review application is refused. The decision to refuse the Homebuilder grant is confirmed.
0
2
0