Mohamed v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

Mohamed initiated legal action against the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue, challenging the Commissioner's decision to recover the first home owner grant and additional duty paid in connection with the purchase of a property in Victoria. The case revolved around the First Home Plus Concession Scheme, which provides financial assistance to first-time homebuyers. The central dispute was whether Mohamed's occupation of the property qualified as his principal place of residence, a requirement for eligibility under the scheme.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mohamed's occupation of the property fulfilled the 'principal place of residence' criterion stipulated in the scheme's guidelines. This involved an analysis of the evidence presented regarding Mohamed's living arrangements and the nature of his occupancy. The court needed to establish whether Mohamed's presence at the property met the statutory definition and if his circumstances aligned with the scheme's intent.

In its decision, the court found that Mohamed's occupation of the property did indeed meet the 'principal place of residence' requirement. The evidence indicated that Mohamed had lived at the property continuously and used it as his primary dwelling. The court concluded that the Commissioner's interpretation of the residence requirement was too narrow and did not align with the plain language of the statute or the scheme's objectives. Consequently, the court revoked the Commissioner's decisions to recover the grant and additional duty, ruling in Mohamed's favour.