Russo v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] QCAT 519

• [3] The Applicant provided several invoices to support that information including an invoice and receipt in the amount of $6,868.62 from Frank X Rupp & Sons addressed to the Applicant for the installation of a septic tank, the installation of drainage and its connection to the Home.
• [4] On 7 June 2022, the Respondent refused the Applicant's Application because the Contract was not a comprehensive building contract.
• [5] On 5 August 2022, the Applicant objected to the Respondent's decision because:

(a) PUH gave the effluent design to the plumber who they engaged. She did not meet the plumber until he came to her land to install the septic tank;

(b) the intention was PUH would arrange and be on site when the plumber attended. However, due to unforeseen and tragic circumstances, this did not happen, and the Applicant facilitated the plumber's attendance, and the invoice was sent to her "out of kindness and respect for the builder;"[1]

(c) PUH facilitated the electrician's attendance but because Ergon was unable to connect power to the site until a later date, the electrical work wasn't completed at that time;

(d) given the tragic circumstances, the Applicant facilitated the electrician's future site visits, and she was invoiced for the work;

(e) the plumbing and electrical work were arranged as part of the comprehensive building contract. The Applicant contracted with PUH to build a home she could move into;

(f) the Contract did not exclude plumbing and electrical work and therefore forms part of the Contract;

(g) PUH's use of subcontractors is not a disqualifying criterion; and

(h) the time it took for the Respondent to assess the Application has disadvantaged the Applicant and should not be used to redefine the terms or intention of the Contract.

• [6] In support of the Applicant's submission, she provided:

(a) a letter from Hinchinbrook Shire Council addressed to PUH and dated 25 August 2021 indicating the plumbing and drainage plans PUH had lodged for the Home had been approved; and

(b) a letter dated 24 June 2021 from Effluent Disposal Systems indicating investigations and tests had been conducted on the Applicant's land. The letter was addressed to "Whom it May Concern."

• [7] On 17 November 2022, the Respondent emailed PUH requesting confirmation that the plumbing and electrical connections "to the fittings provided inside the pop-up home were included in the price of $109,897.50". The Respondent advised PUH that the Applicant's evidence appeared to indicate that, although PUH facilitated the electrician and plumber being on site, the Applicant engaged and paid them "external to the considerations paid" to PUH under the Contract. On 21 November 2022, a representative of PUH responded via email and relevantly stated:

...The price of build included all certification - building approvals including plumbing and electrical and was not the responsibility of the owner....

• [8] On 25 November 2022, the Respondent affirmed the decision under review. The Respondent found the Contract was not a comprehensive building contract because it did not include connection to the electrical mains and septic system.
• [9] Under section 59 of the First Home Owner Grant and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld) ('the Grants Act'), an objection decision is a reviewable decision. On 24 January 2023, the Applicant lodged an Application to review a decision in the Tribunal.[2]

• [10] The 'HomeBuilder' grant scheme is administered by the Respondent under the Grants Act and a statutory instrument, the Administrative Direction Australian Government Home Builder Grant - Queensland ('the Direction').[3]
• [11] Section 25Q of the Grants Act relevantly states:

(1) A person who is eligible to apply for a home builder grant under the home builder direction may apply for the grant.

(2) An application for a home builder grant must comply with the home builder direction.

(3) An applicant for a home builder grant is entitled to be paid the grant if -

(a) the applicant or, for a joint application, each of the applicants, 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.

• [12] The term 'eligible home builder transaction' is defined in the Schedule to the Grants Act and means 'an eligible transaction within the meaning of the home builder direction.'
• [13] The Direction at paragraph 1(b) states that 'eligible transactions' include:

A comprehensive home building contract made by the freehold owner in Queensland or a person who will, prior to completion of the comprehensive home building contract be 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 6 months of the contract commencement date.

• [14] The term 'comprehensive home building contract' is defined at paragraph 14 of the Direction and states:

A comprehensive home building contract means a contract under which a builder undertakes to build a home from the start of the building work to the point 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] Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Direction are headed 'Disqualifying arrangements' and relevantly state:

1. A transaction is not an eligible transaction if the Commissioner is satisfied the contract forms part of a scheme to circumvent limitations on, or requirements affecting, eligibility or entitlement to the grant for an eligible transaction. 2. Unless satisfied to the contrary, the Commissioner must presume the existence of a scheme under paragraph 8 if the contract replaces a contract made before 4 June 2020, and the contract is:

1. to purchase the same or substantially similar home; 2. a comprehensive home building contract to build the same or substantially similar home; or 3. for the same or substantially similar renovation of the home.

1. Also, unless satisfied to the contrary, the Commissioner must presume the existence of a scheme under paragraph 8 if the parties to the contract have not dealt with each other at arm's length.

• [16] For the purposes of the Direction, the definition of 'building work' as defined in Schedule 2 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) is adopted and includes:

...the provision of lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, water supply, sewerage or drainage in connection with a building ...

• [17] During the hearing conducted on 31 March 2025, the Respondent confirmed the only basis on which the Applicant's Application was refused was that the Contract was not a comprehensive building contract. The Respondent argued there was no evidence PUH had subcontracted to the electrician and plumber to undertake the electrical and plumbing connections as part of the Contract and the associated costs were not reflected in the Contract price. Nor did the Contract include the price of cooking appliances.

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal PUH organised the plumbing design and submitted the plans to the local council for approval. When the Applicant decided to go with a septic tank, it was PUH who undertook the negotiations, revised the plans and submitted the revised plans to the local council for approval. She did not meet the plumber until he came to the site to undertake the work. She paid for the plumbing design, soil testing, plumbing connections, electrical connections and connecting power to the site. These costs were about $20,000 and in addition to the Contract price. However, the Applicant argued the additional costs did not mean the Contract was not the 'whole package.' The Contract did not exclude those costs and her agreement with PUH included the Contract and verbal discussions. She said the Form 21 established the Home was a class 1a building[4] and the email from the builder established she was not responsible for the plumbing and electrical. She undertook appliance selection with PUH because the wiring was installed during the build stage.

• [19] The Respondent responded that PUH's email established only that PUH was responsible for plumbing and electrical certification. There was no evidence PUH had subcontracted the plumbing and electrical connection work.
• [20] The Applicant relied upon the reasoning of the decision Scott-Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT 203 ('Scott-Holland') to support her argument. However, at the time of the hearing that decision had been appealed and was due to be determined by a judicial member. Both parties agreed that this matter should be adjourned until the Scott-Holland appeal was determined. The Scott-Holland appeal was determined on 18 November 2025.
• [21] On 19 November 2025 both parties were sent the reasons for the decision Commissioner of State Revenue v Scott-Holland [2025] QCATA 116 and given 14 days to provide any further written submissions if they wished to do so. The Tribunal did not receive any further submissions.

• [22] In Scott-Holland v Commissioner of State Revenue [2023] QCAT (unreported), Mr Scott-Holland entered into a contract for the supply and installation of a modular home on his land. Like the present case, the Scott-Holland contract did not include, amongst other things, plumbing and electrical connections. The Tribunal at first instance, having regard to the decision of Taske v Commissioner for State Revenue [2022] QCAT 416 ('Taske'), found the Commissioner of State Revenue's interpretation of the term 'comprehensive building contract' was too narrow and resulted in absurd and unintended exclusions. The Tribunal (differently constituted) adopted a broader interpretation and found Mr Scott-Holland had entered into a comprehensive building contract.

1. On appeal, Taske[5] was set aside and the original decision of the Commissioner of State Revenue of 29 November 2021 was confirmed. The Appeal Tribunal relevantly stated:

...the definition of comprehensive home building contract that requires all of the works for the building of the home to completion under one contract. If it was otherwise, the $750,000 cap that is prescribed in the Direction would easily be rendered ineffective by owners simply having various works performed outside of the contract and therefore not considered to be subject to the monetary limit. That clearly is not what was intended.

The learned Tribunal Member has erred, in my respectful view, when he found that the builder being 'responsible' for the work of the other contractor, under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (the QBCC Act) was enough to bring the construction of the home within the one contract it had with the owner such as to satisfy the meaning of "a comprehensive home building contract". The definition uses the words "a contract under which a builder undertakes to build a home form the start of the building work to the point where the home is ready for occupation."[6]

• [24] The Appeal Tribunal in Taske clarified that the definition of a comprehensive home building contract including a reference to further contracts was intended to catch the circumstances where the work under the original contract could not be completed; for example, when the builder becomes bankrupt or unlicenced.

The Appeal Tribunal in Scott-Holland determined that the reasoning in the appeal of Taske was sound and applicable to the decision under review. On appeal Scott-Holland was set aside because the Scott-Holland contract was determined not to be a comprehensive home building contract.

1. In the view of the Tribunal, the term comprehensive home building contract means a builder undertakes to build a home from start to finish (that is occupation) under a single contract.[7]

• [26] It is not in dispute PUH entered into the Contract with the Applicant. That Contract was to supply and install a manufactured home through to completion including building certification. The Contract defined the term home by referring to PUH's Quote dated 16 January 2021 ('the Quote'). The Quote was detailed but did not include kitchen appliances, electrical connection to the mains or plumbing connections to sewerage. The Applicant argued that because the Contract did not exclude those items they were included, and the additional costs were a variations to the Contract.
• [27] However, the Contract included the following terms:

1.2 You agree that this Contract forms the entire Contract under which we will supply and install a complete home through to certification signoff. Please read this Contract carefully and contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

3.3 You agree that, unless we otherwise agree, no Variations will be allowed once the Parties have reached Contract and Design.

3.5 Notwithstanding clause 3.3, if you request a Variation, it must be made in writing, and we may accept or reject the request. If we accept the request, we will inform you in writing of any necessary changes to the Home, the Price and/or this Contract (Proposed Variation).

3.6 You may accept the Proposed Variation by singing and returning it to us (including by email). We will not be required to carry out any works or services related to a Proposed Variation until both Parties have signed the Proposed Variation, at which time it will become a Variation.

3.8 Variations will be priced in accordance with any schedule of rates provided to you by us, or as reasonably determined by us.

19.5 Entire Contract: This Contract contain the entire understanding between the Parties, and supersedes all previous discussions, communications, negotiations, understandings, representations, warranties, commitments and Contracts, in respect of its subject matter.

• [28] The above clauses make it clear that the entire agreement between PUH and the Applicant, including subsequent variations, must be reduced to writing and signed by both parties. Under the Contract before the Tribunal, PUH was not required to provide appliances for cooking facilities, connect electrical cables they installed to the mains or connect the installed plumbing to a sewerage system. The Tribunal accepts PUH could have assisted the Applicant to facilitate this work, but the Tribunal does not accept PUH had a contractual obligation to do so. If it did, those items must have been included in the Contract and costed.[8] The Tribunal finds the Applicant was responsible for the electrical and plumbing connections and the procurement of cooking appliances. This finding of fact is consistent with the Contract not including these items, the information the Applicant supplied to the Respondent on 28 March 2022 and the price of the Contract not including the costs of appliance/s for cooking facilities and the plumbing and electrical connections. Whether PUH was or was not on site when the electrician and/or plumber attended to do the connections is irrelevant.
• [29] The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not enter into a comprehensive building contract as defined and the decision under review is affirmed.

[1] See page 2 of the Applicant's document titled "OBJECTION NOTES - RUSSO".

[2] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 24.

[3] The term 'home builder direction' is defined in the Schedule to First Home Owner Grant and Other Home Owner Grants Act 2000 (Qld) and means 'the administrative direction called 'Australian Government HomeBuilder Grant - Queensland' made by the Minister and published on the department's website'.

1. [4] Form 21 Final Inspection Certificate dated 7 July 2022 for a single detached class 1a building and class 10 buildings or structures. The Applicant's written evidence was, once the outstanding tasks had been completed, Pop Up Homes Pty Ltd arranged for the private certifier to visit the site and provide certification.

2. [5] Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121.

1. [7] Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121, [16]; Commissioner of State

Revenue v Reynolds [2025] QCATA 58.

[8] Commissioner of State Revenue v Taske [2023] QCATA 121, [24].