Al Kursan and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Al Kursan against a decision to cancel his carer payment. The dispute centred on whether Mr Al Kursan had provided "constant care" to his wife, Mrs Al Hilfi, as required by section 198(2) of the relevant Act. The case was heard by Member K. Parker of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr Al Kursan's activities constituted "constant care" for Mrs Al Hilfi, thereby satisfying the eligibility criteria for carer payment. This involved interpreting the meaning of "constant care" in the context of the legislation and assessing whether the care provided by Mr Al Kursan met this threshold, particularly in light of Mrs Al Hilfi's medical conditions and her involvement in a child care business.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "constant care" as providing care on a daily basis for a significant period, equivalent to a normal working day, to recognise that the carer is unable to undertake substantial employment. It noted that this care could be active, supervisory, or monitoring, and that the intensity of care during the remaining part of a 24-hour period could equate to a normal working day. The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by Mrs Al Hilfi's doctor indicated her daily care needs were not substantial. This was further supported by Mrs Al Hilfi's operation of a home-based child care service for an extended period, which suggested her care needs did not significantly impede her ability to manage such a business. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Al Kursan's activities were largely related to assisting with the child care business or general household chores, rather than the specific care needs arising from Mrs Al Hilfi's disability.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Al Kursan did not provide constant care to Mrs Al Hilfi as at 15 October 2015. Therefore, he did not qualify for carer payment under section 198(2) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the previous decisions to cancel his carer payment.