Taske v Commissioner of State Revenue

Nicola Jay Taske applied for a HomeBuilder Grant for the construction of a new home in Shaw. The Commissioner rejected the application on the basis that the Taskes had entered into two contracts for the construction of the home, and that the building contract did not include the waterproofing and tiling of the wet areas. The Taskes objected to the decision and sought an internal review. The internal reviewer upheld the initial decision. The Taskes then filed an application to review that decision in the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s function under s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act is to produce the correct and preferable decision. That is, to review all of the material and produce a decision independent of that of the Commissioner. The question for determination was whether the Parkside Contract and the Everlast contract together satisfy the definition of a ‘comprehensive building contract’ in the Administrative Direction. Secondly, whether the stand alone Parkside contract satisfies the definition of ‘comprehensive home building contract’. The Taskes submitted that the two contracts should be considered together as one to satisfy the definition. The difficulty with that argument is that the definition is quite specific in that it is the ‘builder’ that has to undertake the work from start to finish. There is no dispute that Parkside is a builder and can build a compliant house from start to finish. By contrast Everlast, despite holding a licence under the Queensland Building and Construction Act 1991 (Qld) is not a builder. It cannot undertake the building of the house from start to finish. Furthermore, the definition refers to “a contract”. Although s 32 of the Act Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) provides that words in the singular generally include the plural, this only applies if the application of s 32 is not displaced wholly or partly by a contrary intention appearing in the Direction. The definition of comprehensive home building contract does not contemplate a home owner entering into two contracts, as occurred here, for the construction of a single dwelling. However, having regard to the factual circumstances as outline above, I find that the contract entered into with Parkside was a comprehensive building contract. The Commissioner’s submission on the interpretation or application of the Directions is, in my view, too restrictive and defeats the purpose of the Direction as a legislative instrument. The correct and preferable decision is that the Taske’s application for the HomeBuilder grant should be approved. As a consequence, the Commissioner’s decision is set aside and there be a fresh decision accordingly.