Commissioner of State Revenue v Lewis [2024] QCATA 126

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Commissioner of State Revenue v Lewis [2024] QCATA 126 PARTIES: COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE (applicant/appellant) v SARAH JANE LEWIS AND SCOTT CHRISTOPHER LEWIS (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: APL289-22 ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S: GAR424-21 MATTER TYPE: Appeals DELIVERED ON: 2 December 2024 HEARING DATE: 11 October 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Judicial Member D J McGill SC ORDERS: Appeal allowed. The decision of the Tribunal of 2 September 2022 set aside. In lieu thereof, decide that the decision of the appellant be confirmed. No order as to costs. Order that the amount of the HomeBuilder Grant paid to the respondents be repaid by them to the appellant. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Review of administrative decision – HomeBuilder Grant – where owners entered into contract with unlicensed building company to build house – whether eligible transaction for the purposes of the Administrative Direction – grant not payable – appeal allowed First Home Owner and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld) s 25Q(3) Ashton v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] QCAT 394 -- 1 of 11 -- 2 Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121 Cousens v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 423 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Appellant: J T Sargent, instructed by the appellant Respondents: Self-represented REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 31 May 2021 the respondents lodged with the appellant an application for a HomeBuilder Grant, provided under an arrangement between the State and Commonwealth governments, in respect of a contract they had entered into to have built a home at Upper Coomera.1 The following day the application was rejected, on the basis that the respondents’ contract did not satisfy the criteria for such a grant.2 The respondents sought internal review of that decision, but on 24 June 2021 a senior review officer confirmed the decision.3 [2] The respondents applied on 7 July 2021 to the Tribunal, in its review jurisdiction, to review the decision on the internal review. Following a brief hearing on 9 August 2022 a Member, for written reasons he gave, decided on 2 September 2022 to set aside the decision of the appellant, and that the respondents’ application for the grant be allowed. On 29 September 2022 the appellant filed in the Tribunal an application for leave to appeal or appeal from the decision of the Member. It is that appeal which is before me for decision. [3] Under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“the QCAT Act”) s 142 the appellant is entitled to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal from the decision of the Member, but only on a question of law. An appellant requires the leave of the Appeal Tribunal to appeal on a question of fact, or of mixed law and fact,4 and the appellant has not sought such leave. The appeal is therefore confined to a question or questions of law, and is an appeal in the strict sense.5 As to what amounts to a question of law, see Allen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2024] QCA 24. Grounds of Appeal [4] The application for appeal identified the ground of appeal as that the Tribunal misconstrued s 14 of the Administrative Direction – Australian Government HomeBuilder Grant – Queensland by finding that the reference to “builder” in the definition of “Comprehensive Home Building Contract” is not restricted to a builder licensed under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 1 Appeal Book Part 1 (“AB”) page 108-112. For my convenience I shall refer to the Commissioner as the appellant, and to Mr and Mrs Lewis as the respondents. 2 AB page 99, page 113. 3 AB page 56. 4 The QCAT Act s 142(3)(b). 5 The QCAT Act s 146. See Pivovarova v Michelsen (2019) 2 QR 508 at [9]. -- 2 of 11 -- 3 (Qld).6 The question of the true construction of a statute or statutory instrument is a question of law, so the appeal is one on a question of law only. Background [5] On 4 June 2020 the Commonwealth government announced a scheme to provide grants to eligible owner-occupiers to help build a new home or substantially renovate an existing home.7 Subsequently the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories entered into the National Partnership on HomeBuilder.8 That document recited that each of them recognised that they had a mutual interest to support the residential construction sector recover from the Coronavirus crisis. The program’s eligibility criteria were outlined in detail in Schedule A to the agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement identified the objectives of the agreement, which were to support the residential construction sector, and to increase residential construction activity, and to maintain residential construction jobs. The Commonwealth agreed to reimburse the states for monies paid under the scheme, and the states agreed to administer the scheme, including taking reasonable steps to ensure that recipients met the eligibility criteria set out in Schedule A. [6] Clause 28 of the Partnership provided that, where an owner-occupier recipient of a grant was later found to be ineligible for the grant, the state was to repay to the Commonwealth any funding recovered. Schedule A set out a number of eligibility criteria, including entry within a specified period into a contract to build a new home, where the value of the home and the land on which it stood did not exceed $750,000.9 Other requirements were income caps on eligible applicants, and that “construction must be undertaken by a registered or licensed contractor who is named as a builder on the building licence or permit. [7] Schedule A Clause 15 provided: It is intended that owner-occupiers will be eligible for HomeBuilder, whether the contract is with a licensed or registered builder or developer. In either case, a valid copy of the licence or registration would need to be provided to the applicant showing a licence or registration date prior to 4 June 2020. [8] In Schedule B, the implementation guidelines, the suggested evidentiary requirement for the requirement in Clause 15 of Schedule A was “a copy of the builder’s valid licence/registration”. It seems clear that, at that stage at least, the scheme contemplated that the grant would be payable in a situation where the applicant entered into a contract with a developer for a house and land package, so long as the contract provided for the building of a new home by an existing registered or licensed builder, commencing within three months of the date of the contract with the applicant. [9] In Queensland the HomeBuilder scheme was administered under the First Home Owner and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld) (“the Act”).10 Part 3B of the 6 I shall refer to that Act as the QBCC Act. 7 AB page 177. 8 I shall refer to this as the Partnership. The agreement has been amended at least once, and I assume that the version at AB page 121 is the relevant version. 9 AB page 189. 10 Despite the short title, the Act provided for the administration of First Home Owner Grants, and other grants to home owners, rather than for the administration of grants to home owners in respect of their first and later homes. -- 3 of 11 -- 4 Act dealt with “Home builder grants”, defined in the Schedule as a grant payable under that Part. By s 25P of the Act the appellant was responsible for administering the “home builder direction”, and by s 25Q a person who was eligible to apply for a grant under the “home builder direction” may apply for a grant, which application must comply with that direction. The “home builder direction” is defined in the Schedule as “the administrative direction called “Australian Government HomeBuilder Grant – Queensland” made by the Minister and published on the department’s website.11 [10] The Act s 25Q(3) providesd so far as is relevant, that an applicant for a home builder grant was entitled to be paid the grant if: (a) The applicant … complies with the eligibility criteria for the grant under the home builder direction; and (b) The transaction for which the grant is sought is an eligible home builder transaction; and (c) The relevant requirement in relation to the eligible home builder transaction has been met. [11] The section went on to provide that only one such grant is payable for a particular transaction, and to define “relevant requirement”, for the purposes of this application, as “the foundations have been laid and the first progress payment has been paid to the builder under the contract.” [12] If the appellant was satisfied the grant was payable on an application for the grant, the payment must be authorised: s 25R. Section 25S fixed the amount of the grant, while s 25T provided that, if authorised by the appellant, the grant must be paid to the applicant in the way stated by the Direction. The Part contains further machinery provisions, but they need not be considered further. [13] The Direction made by the Minister12 provided in Clause 1 that an eligible transaction for the payment of the grant included: A comprehensive home building contract made by the freehold owner of land in Queensland … to have a new home built on the land, 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 six months of the contract commencement date … . [14] Other eligible transactions were a contract for the purchase of a new home in Queensland, and a substantial renovation contract made by the freehold owner of a home in Queensland, in each case with the same set of timing restrictions, so that in each case transactions preceding 4 June 2020, and construction prior to that date, were excluded. Clause 14 of the Direction provided: A comprehensive home building contract means a contract under which a builder undertakes to build a home from the start of building work to the point 11 I shall refer to it as “the Direction”. There has also been more than one version of the Direction, and I have referred to the version at AB page 200. 12 The Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning approved a Direction, which was amended by the Minister on 16 December 2020: AB page 200. I assume that the Direction in the Appeal Book was the version applicable at the relevant time, and that it was made by the relevant Minister. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 where the home is ready for occupation and, if for any reason, the work to be carried out under the contract is not completed, includes any further contract under which the work is to be completed. [15] Unlike the situation with a comprehensive home building contract, for the contract to purchase a new home there was no requirement about with whom the contract was made, although as a contract to purchase the freehold it would have to be made with a person who held the freehold title to the land to be purchased, or who was in a position to convey good title to the land to the purchaser. But in each case for there to be an eligible transaction there had to be building work undertaken. [16] Clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the Direction provided: 5. If the contract commencement date is before 29 November 2020, a transaction is not an eligible transaction if the building work will be performed by a person who does not hold a licence to carry out the builder work under the [QBCC Act] that was issued prior to 4 June 2020. 6. If the contract commencement date is on or after 29 November 2020, a transaction is not an eligible transaction if the building work will be performed by a person who does not hold a licence to carry out the builder work under the [QBCC Act] that was issued prior to 29 November 2020. 7. Also, a transaction is not an eligible transaction if part or all of the building work is to be performed by the applicant, regardless of whether the applicant holds an owner-builder permit under the [QBCC Act]. [17] I should add that a footnote to Clause 5 adopted for the purposes of the Direction the definition of “building work” in the QBCC Act. I shall not quote that definition, which is lengthy and cumbersome, but what is significant is that the QBCC Act s 42 prohibits a person from carrying out, or undertaking to carry out, “building work” unless the person holds a contractor’s licence of the appropriate class under the Act. A penalty is provided, and a person who carries out building work in contravention of s 42 is not entitled to any monetary or other consideration for doing so.13 [18] If the licensee is a company, it is also prohibited by the QBCC Act s 42B from carrying out, or undertaking to carry out, building work unless the licensee has a nominee who holds a contractor’s licence, or a nominee supervisor’s licence, for that building work. The clear intention of the legislature under the QBCC Act is that building work should only be carried out by person who hold the appropriate licence for that work. There are various requirements for the grant of a licence, which I need not go into, but the activity is highly regulated. [19] The respondents entered into a contract dated 2 October 2020 for them to purchase a parcel of vacant land situated at Upper Coomera, with settlement thirty days after the contract. The contract was not unconditional, and appears to have been a private sale, through a real estate agent. I assume that it settled, before they entered into the building contract. [20] The respondents entered into a contract dated 21 December 2020 with a company Freedom Homes Qld Pty Ltd which was described as “The builder’ in the particulars of the contract, which appears to be on a Housing Industry Association (“HIA”) form. 13 This is subject to a limited form of compensation under subsection (4). For a discussion of these provisions, see Chapel of Angels Pty Ltd v Hennessy Building Pty Ltd [2020] QCA 219 at [42] – [46], [49] – [57]. -- 5 of 11 -- 6 Among the particulars of the builder is space for a “builder’s licence number”, which did state a number, but the entry for “HIA membership no” was left blank.14 At item 9 of the Schedule the works were described as “new dwelling”, the title description of the land was given, and it was described as vacant land. This matched the title description of the land the subject of the sale contract dated 2 October 2020. On the signature page, the name of the person signing as or for the builder was given as “Brian Clout”. Apparently he and the respondents signed the contract. [21] I do not have a copy of the general conditions of contract, so I cannot be certain that this was a contract to build a new dwelling for the respondents, rather than a contract to procure that such a dwelling be built; but I am prepared to infer that it was the former, because it was a form for a builder to use, indeed, for an HIA member to use, and it says in a note in item 15 of the schedule, dealing with late completion damages, that they apply “in the event that the builder does not reach practical completion by the end of the building period”. That shows that it was the “builder” which was to reach practical completion. [22] The form also included a ticked box for “I have checked the contractor’s licence and licence history on the QBCC Online Contractor Search at qbcc.qld.gov.au.” Evidently that had not been done by the respondents, or they would have discovered that Freedom Homes Qld Pty Ltd did not hold a contractor’s licence at that time,15 and that the licence number given on the contract as that of the company in fact belonged to an employee of the company.16 But the contract was made with the company, not with the employee, and on the face of it was in breach of the QBCC Act s 42. [23] The respondents applied for the Home Builder grant on 21 November 202017 on the basis that they had entered into a Comprehensive Home Building Contract dated 21 December 2020 with Freedom Homes Qld Pty Ltd. The licence number given was the number of the individual referred to above. The application was rejected the following day.18 An internal review was sought, but was also unsuccessful. Notice of the decision and a statement of the reasons for it dated 24 June 2021 were sent to the respondents. They applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision, and on 2 September the Member set aside the decision of the appellant, and decided that the application for the grant be allowed. Reasons of the Member [24] The Member recited that the contract had been made with the company, and that it did not hold a builder’s licence under the QBCC Act, but the licence number specified related to an individual who held a “Builder – Low Rise” licence which covered the work to be done under the contract.19 He identified that the issue was whether the contract was an “eligible transaction” under the Direction, and noted that there was no factual issue, and the matter turned on the correct construction of the Direction. He referred to provisions in the Partnership, and to the Direction. 14 There were a number of other blanks in the contract documents that I have seen. 15 See the letter from Mr Clout dated 18 September 2021: AB page 38. The holder of the licence number on the contract was described as a “licensed nominee”. 16 The individual held a Builder – Low Rise licence, a Carpentry licence and a Joinery licence from 7 May 2013: AB pages 94-96. 17 AB page 108. 18 AB page 113. 19 Reasons [1], [2]. -- 6 of 11 -- 7 [25] He said at [11] that the former envisaged that the building work be undertaken by a licensed contractor, but said that paragraph 15 (quoted above at [7]) was mainly concerned with ensuring that the licence date was before 4 June 2020. “The important feature is that the building work is undertaken by a licensed builder as was the case here.” I am not at all sure that there was a basis in the evidence for that proposition. The letter from the director said that the individual was a “licensed nominee”, not that the whole of the work was subcontracted to him. I expect he was doing what he did as an employee of the company. But that raises a question of fact, and there was no application for leave to appeal on such a question. [26] The Member said that Clause 14 of the Direction was ambiguous as to whether the reference to the “builder” in that clause was to a licensed builder. He said that there was no dispute that the company discharged all of its obligations under the building contract, and satisfied the terms of Clause 14 of the Direction, acting through the individual licensed builder: [14]. The Member said that, had it been intended to impose a requirement in Clause 14 that the builder be a “licensed builder” that could have been done expressly: [16]. Clause 6 of the Direction provided the necessary protection under the QBCC Act, by requiring the work to be caried out by a person with a licence. The Member said that what Clause 6 does not say is that the building contract must be with a licensed contractor to be an eligible transaction. Accordingly, “A licensed builder must undertake the building work and the contract must be with a builder. They do not necessarily have to be one and the same.”20 That was the essential conclusion which led to the decision of the Member. [27] The Member also said that such a situation was consistent with the operation of the QBCC Act, by the use of nominees and the oversight of building works by the QBCC. With respect, that proposition, as a statement of the situation under the QBCC Act, is wrong. The QBCC Act s 42 prohibits both the carrying out of building work, and undertaking to carry out building work. There is no evidence that the licensed individual ever undertook to carry out the building work, and plainly the contract, that is, the undertaking to carry out the work, was made with the company. The interpretation of the Member had the effect that the grant was payable even if the arrangement made by the parties was one prohibited by the QBCC Act. [28] Although nominees have a place under the QBCC Act, they do not function as an alternative for a company to having a licence itself. Rather, a company must both have its own licence, and have a nominee who also has a licence.21 The function of the nominee is not to be the person who holds the licence for the company. In the next paragraph, the Member said that the licensed nominee was “named on the contract”. I have not located his name on the contract, just his licence number, which was presented as the number of a licence held by the company. Even if the word “builder” could possibly have meant someone other than a licensed builder in Clause 14 of the Direction, there is no reason to think that the word “builder” in Item 3 in the schedule to the building contract meant different persons in the first and the sixth lines.22 20 Reasons [17]. 21 The QBCC Act s 42B. 22 Particularly because the form has a note following the licence number: “Please note that builder’s details must be as per licence.” I am using “person” in the statutory sense, as including a company. -- 7 of 11 -- 8 Submissions [29] The basic submission for the appellant was that, in order to be an eligible transaction in the form of a comprehensive home building contract, the contract must be with a licensed builder because, in the case of such a contract, the builder is entering into a contract to perform the work, and therefore must be a licensed contractor, indeed, one who has held a licence since before 29 November 2020. That is the effect of reading clauses 6 and 14 of the Direction together. It was submitted that the interpretation given to the Direction by the Member was inconsistent with the prohibition in the QBCC Act on an unlicensed person entering into a building contract. [30] One would expect the Minister, in making the Direction, would be aware of the requirements in the QBCC Act. There is no doubt that building a home from the start of building work to the point where it is ready for occupation is building work, and under the QBCC Act undertaking (by contract) to do that is prohibited unless the person undertaking to do the work is licensed under that Act. There can be a comprehensive home building contract consistent with the QBCC Act only if the person entering into the contract is licensed under the QBCC Act to build such a home. The whole point of this scheme was to assist licensed contractors, and the company with whom the respondents contracted was not a licensed contractor, so it was not consistent with the underlying purpose of the scheme to assist such a person. [31] The Direction is a statutory instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) s 7. Accordingly the rules of statutory interpretation apply to it, including giving a purposive interpretation to its provisions.23 The purpose of the scheme was to assist people who were duly licensed and in the industry at the time the scheme was announced. [32] The appellant referred to three recent decisions of the Tribunal. In Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121 the respondents had entered into a contract with a builder to build a house, but excluding the waterproofing and tiling work in certain areas, which were the subject of a separate contract between the respondents and a tiler. Only that tiler was able to supply particular tiles sought by the respondents. The application for the grant was rejected because there was no one contract which met the definition in Clause 14 of the Direction, and that position was upheld by the Appeal Tribunal. An argument that the two contracts the respondents had entered together formed an eligible transaction was rejected. There is nothing to suggest that either contractor was not licensed at the relevant time, and the Judicial Member analysed relevant provisions of the QBCC Act to show that the builder was not “responsible” for the work of the tiler, as had been held at first instance. [33] In Cousens v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 423 the Tribunal had to consider three issues, one of which was that the contract for the work to be done had been made with a company which was not a licensed contractor, rather than with the individual behind the company, who was. The applicant sought to rely on the decision in the present matter at first instance, but the Member declined to follow it, because the company was the party that undertook by the contract to perform the work under it, and so it was in breach of the QBCC Act. It was said to be unlikely that the intention of the Minister in making the Direction was that a grant would be payable in respect 23 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 14A. -- 8 of 11 -- 9 of a contract that it was unlawful for the company to enter into: [56]. The decision of the respondent in that matter was upheld. [34] In Ashton v Commissioner of State Revenue [2024] QCAT 394 the same issue arose, although with a complication that, after a contract with a builder had been signed and the grant applied for, the builder, a company, went into liquidation. A replacement contract was then signed, and the new builder, another company, was at the time the contract was made a licensed contractor. It had however not acquired the necessary licence before the date mentioned in Clause 6 of the Direction, 29 November 2020, having obtained the necessary licence only on 27 January 2021. The building work was carried out to completion, but the grant was refused because the contract was not made with a builder holding a licence prior to the applicable cut off date. [35] The respondents did not make submissions directed to the terms of the Direction, but said they were assured at the start that the grant would be available, though they did not claim to have been given this assurance by anyone associated with the appellant. They said that others who had contracted with the company had received the grant, and could not understand why they had been signed out.24 The company had been waiting for its licence at the time, and had since received it. To have to refund the grant would be a huge burden to them. Consideration [36] I consider that, on the true construction of the Direction, the interpretation adopted by the Member was in error, and that the respondents were not entitled to receive the grant, because their contract was with an unlicensed builder. Broadly speaking, I agree with the submissions for the appellant, and with the approach in Cousens and Ashton. The grant should not have been paid to them. [37] It is clear enough that the function of the grant scheme, as it emerges from the Partnership, was to provide support to existing participants in the home building industry, in view of the difficulty that industry was facing from Covid. That was enforced, at least under the version of the Partnership that I have seen, by confining the scheme to those who held the applicable registration or licence at a particular time.25 It was not to be available for new entrants to the industry. This was reflected in the requirement of the Direction that the person doing the building work hold a licence issued before a particular date. This was not the case with the company with which the respondents contracted. There was no intention on the part of the governments to assist it. [38] The Partnership, and the Direction, covered three situations: where there was a new house and land package sold to an eligible person, where an eligible person entered into a contract to have a new home built (presumably on the person’s land) and where there was a major renovation undertaken by the owner. There was no requirement in the first situation that the contract to purchase be one made by the builder of the new house, and the reference to sales by developers shows that that was intentional, although it was still intended that the house be built by an existing participant in the industry. The requirement for a licence to be held by a particular date applied equally 24 The appellant in response said that there had been some investigation of this claim, and no other cases had been identified. The source of this belief seems to have been the director of the company: AB page 38. He was perhaps not the most reliable source of information. 25 Partnership Schedule A Clause 15, quoted at [7] above. I understand the date was later amended. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 to all three types of eligible transaction, and there were also limitations in terms of when the sale contract was signed and when the construction was undertaken which were consistent with the purpose of the scheme. [39] In the second situation, the eligible person had to enter into a “comprehensive home building contract” for there to be an eligible transaction. That was defined as a contract under which a builder undertakes to build a home. The significant word here in “build”; it would not be an eligible transaction if the contract merely required the “builder” to procure the building of a home by someone else. Yet on the interpretation of the situation by the Member, that is what occurred here: the company procured the licensed nominee to build the home for the respondents. It is unfortunate that the full conditions of the contract are not before the Tribunal, but I think it very likely that a standard form contract prepared by the HIA would provide for the “builder” to build the house. [40] If the situation was that the company was merely undertaking to procure that the building work would be done by its licensed employee (or nominee), it was not an eligible transaction for the purposes of the Direction, and the grant was not payable. But if the true nature of the contract was that the company was undertaking to “build”, that is, to carry out the building work, then the contract met the requirements of Clause 14, only to run into the requirement in Clause 6 that the “building work will be performed by a person” who held a licence issued prior to 29 November 2020 (to eliminate the double negative.) The use of the word “will” shows that this is directed to the future, when the person who has undertaken to build does so by performing building work. Properly understood Clause 6 is a limitation or exception on the definition of eligible transaction in Clause 14, and on each other class of eligible transaction. In those circumstances, it is appropriate to read the clauses together, as requiring the person who undertakes to build, and who will therefore perform the building work, to be licensed by a particular date. In this case it was not, so the contract was not an eligible transaction, and the grant was not payable. [41] The reason why Clauses 5 and 6 refer to a person “performing the building work” rather than a person entering into a contract with the applicants (for the grant) is that, in the case of the first type of eligible transaction, the licensed builder might be contracting with a developer, or perhaps building on its own land, so that there was no building contract at all. Where Clause 14 applies, it is obvious enough that it does not refer to a “licensed builder” because the requirement that the builder hold a licence has already been covered by Clause 5 or 6. There is nothing which strikes me as odd or suggestive about the omission to refer to a “licensed builder” in Clause 14. [42] What would strike me as odd, indeed very odd, would be that the Minister would put in place a Direction under which a grant would be payable, in effect, to a “builder” who did not hold the required licence and who was therefore prohibited from entering into the contract which constituted the eligible transaction, particularly in the context of the requirement in the Partnership for the scheme to be confined to existing licensed builders in the industry. That I regard as a strong indication against an interpretation of the Direction by which a contract with a builder who did not hold the relevant licence (and at the relevant time) could still trigger payment of a grant. I therefore reject the proposition that the “builder” in Clause 14 could be a different person from the person who will do the building work. -- 10 of 11 -- 11 Conclusion [43] I therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the Tribunal of 2 September 2022, and in lieu thereof, decide that the decision of the appellant be confirmed. The appellant did not seek an order for costs, so there will be no order for costs. The grant was paid to the respondents, so it is appropriate to order that it be repaid to the appellant. The only consolation I can offer the respondents is that I understand that house prices in south east Queensland have more of less doubled since 2020, so that even without the grant they have probably done well out of building when they did. -- 11 of 11 --