Blanch and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2005] AATA 992

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 992

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No  V2005/292

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		JENNIFER BLANCH

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS  

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Date7 October 2005

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution it is decided that Ms Blanch is entitled to Disability Support Pension from 3 September 2004.

..............................................

SOCIAL SECURITY – application to refuse disability support pension refusal – applicant did not appear at hearing – respondent conceded appeal and agreed to pay disability support pension from date of claim – decision set aside

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

7 October 2005   Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.      Ms Blanch made application to review a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT).  The SSAT decided to affirm a decision previously made by Centrelink to reject a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP) made on 3 September 2004.

2.      The hearing of the application was listed for 5 October 2005.  Ms Blanch did not appear.  Ms Navarro appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. It was learnt on the day of hearing that the respondent intended to concede the appeal and pay DSP to Ms Blanch from 3 September 2004, being the date of the claim. Minutes of Consent for signing by Ms Blanch were prepared. By her absence the Minutes of Consent could not be signed by both parties and a decision could be made pursuant to s 42C of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).

4.      However, the Tribunal is empowered to determine its own procedure and can conduct a review “on the papers”.

5.      I am satisfied, having read the draft Minutes of Consent that the respondent is prepared to pay DSP from 3 September 2004, being the date of the claim.  Ms Blanch could not achieve any greater benefit than that which is now conceded by the respondent.

6.      According, the decision under review will be set aside and in substitution therefore it is decided that Ms Blanch is entitled to DSP from 3 September 2004.

I certify that the 6 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of:
Mr John Handley, Senior Member

Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  5 October 2005
Date of Decision  7 October 2005
Solicitor for the Applicant          Nil
Departmental Advocate            Ms K Navarro