Castleman v Secretary, Department of Social Security

The applicant, Mr Castleman, appealed a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which had affirmed the respondent’s decision to refuse him a newstart allowance. The applicant, a certified practicing accountant with experience as a lecturer and with the Australian Tax Office, argued that he was qualified for the allowance but had been refused because he did not satisfy the “activity test” as defined in section 601(1) of the relevant Act. The applicant’s argument was that he had been actively seeking paid work in his particular field of expertise and, while he was not willing to accept any type of job, this did not prevent him from satisfying the activity test.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the “activity test” as defined in the relevant section of the Act. The “activity test” requires a person to be actively seeking and willing to undertake paid work, other than work that is unsuitable to be undertaken by the person. The applicant argued that he was actively seeking paid work in his particular field of expertise and that his refusal to accept any type of job did not prevent him from satisfying the activity test. The respondent argued that the applicant was not willing to undertake paid work, other than work that was suitable to be undertaken by him, and therefore did not satisfy the activity test.

The court found that the applicant had not satisfied the activity test because he had not made a sufficient effort to seek paid work, other than work that was suitable to be undertaken by him. The court found that the applicant had voluntarily restricted his searches to what he considered to be the most appropriate work for him to undertake and had not made any effort to seek paid work in other fields. The court found that the applicant’s attempts to find work throughout the state and interstate were commendable, but that he should have realised that he was required to apply for jobs for which he may have been successful, even though he believed himself to be overqualified for the position. The court found that the applicant’s refusal to even attempt this level of search prevented him from selling his labour on an open market and that he was not entitled to be supported by the taxpayer while he restricted his searches for a position to those which he deemed appropriate to his qualifications and experience.

The court set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further consideration according to law.