Below is a listing of appeals heard by the South Australian Civil & Administration Tribunal (SACAT) in relation to housing grant matters since August 2017.
Wells v Treasurer for the State of South Australia, Commissioner of State Taxation (2018/SA002592) |
---|
Date of Decision: 21 March 2019 The Tribunal set aside the decisions of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of State Taxation and allowed the Seniors Housing Grant for the following reasons: Right of occupation is not defined under the First Home and Housing Construction Grants Regulations 2015 (the “Regulations”). The First Home and Housing Construction Grants Act 2000 contemplates that a right under the Regulations can fall short of what would be a legal interest. Whilst the creation of a legal interest in land usually requires writing, a right of occupation must be a right which allows the Commissioner of State Taxation to form the view that there is a “reasonable security of tenure” but need not necessarily be in writing. The applicants had an informal right of occupation over the relevant land given to them by a relative (i.e. Dr Wells to Mrs Wells and vice-versa) at the relevant time (i.e. on completion of the contract in March 2017). That the applicants are also trustees of a trust does not mean that they are not relatives for the purposes of the Regulations. On the basis of the applicants’ affidavit of 8 February 2019, the applicants gave themselves an informal right of occupation that existed at the relevant time (i.e. on completion of the contract in March 2017) and that gave them reasonable security of tenure, as the land was acquired, and the building contract entered into, for the mutual purpose of the house being constructed as their place of residence for their retirement on completion of the building works. The following factors were relevant to establishing the applicants’ informal right of occupation and reasonable security of tenure over the relevant land at the relevant time (i.e. on completion of the contract in March 2017):
Catchwords: SENIORS HOUSING GRANT – Non-conforming interest – A licence or right of occupancy over land given to a person by a relative – Reasonable security of tenure |
Marinis v Treasurer for the State of South Australia, Commissioner of State Taxation (2017/SA002340) |
---|
Date of Decision: 7 March 2019 Orders: The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. Decision: The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of State Taxation to require repayment of the First Home Owner Grant (FHOG) on the basis that the applicant did not occupy the relevant property (the “Property”) as her principal place of residence for a continuous period of at least six months (the “Residence Requirement”). Catchwords: FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT – residence requirement – principal place of residence Case Summary: Decision not published in this case. |
Shipley v Treasurer for the State of South Australia, Commissioner for State Taxation (2018/SA002875) |
---|
Date of Decision: 3 December 2018 Orders: The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. Decision: The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of State Taxation to deny an application for the Seniors Housing Grant (SHG) on the basis that the applicant did not commence an eligible transaction during the eligibility period. The applicant signed a comprehensive home building contract prior to the abolition of the SHG, however a representative of the builder did not countersign the contract until after abolition. Unless the parties held a different intention, a contract was not “made” for the purposes of the SHG until the final signature was applied. The Tribunal concluded that the signing of the contract by the applicant did not create a contract, but instead constituted an offer to the builder which required acceptance. In the Tribunal’s view, the builder did not consider itself legally bound by the contract until it had been signed on its behalf. It was clear that the builder maintained the right to decline to sign the contract and to then produce a substantially different contract to the applicant. Furthermore, it was apparent that the contract was drafted with the provisions of the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 in mind (Section 28 of that Act requires that such a contract be in writing and signed by both parties). Catchwords: HOUSING CONSTRUCTION GRANT – comprehensive home building contract – eligible transaction – owner builder – transaction commencement date Case Summary: Decision not published in this case. |
Williams v Treasurer for the State of South Australia, Commissioner for State Taxation (2017/SA001110) |
---|
Date of Decision: 8 August 2017 Orders: 1. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review. Decision: The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the Treasurer and Commissioner of State Taxation to deny an application for the Housing Construction Grant (HCG) on the basis that the applicant did not commence an eligible transaction during the eligibility period. Catchwords: HOUSING CONSTRUCTION GRANT – comprehensive home building contract – supervision only contract – eligible transaction – owner builder – transaction commencement date Case Summary: Decision not published in this case. |