Aurelius Vertoudakis as Executor of the Estate of the late Alexandra Vertoudakis and Secretary, Department of Health)

This matter concerned an application by Aurelius Vertoudakis, as executor of the estate of the late Alexandra Vertoudakis, against the Secretary of the Department of Health. The dispute arose from an assessment of the deceased's assets to determine her eligibility for government assistance with residential aged care accommodation costs under the *Aged Care Act 1997* (Cth). Initially, the deceased's disclosed assets of $15,000 led to an assessment that she met the conditions for fully supported resident status. However, upon disclosure of a joint bank account with a balance of $137,260.80, a subsequent assessment valued her assets at $77,042, deeming her eligible only for partially supported resident status.

The primary legal issue before the Deputy President was whether the deceased qualified for fully supported resident status, which would entitle her to greater government assistance with her aged care accommodation costs. This required the court to determine the correct valuation of the deceased's assets for the purposes of the *Aged Care Act* and to consider whether the Secretary's subsequent assessment was legally sound. The applicant sought to have the Tribunal exercise its discretion to depart from the decision under review, arguing for a different outcome.

The Deputy President reasoned that the Tribunal's discretion could only be exercised judicially and where a legal error was demonstrated. In this instance, no legal error was found in the Secretary's assessment. The deceased's failure to disclose the joint bank account in her initial inquiry, and its subsequent inclusion in the asset valuation, meant that her assets exceeded the threshold for fully supported resident status. The Deputy President noted that an application for an ex gratia payment had been unsuccessful, and without a legal error, the Tribunal had no discretion to alter the decision.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the decision under review was affirmed. The deceased did not qualify for fully supported resident status, and therefore, had no entitlement at law to the amount claimed.