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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to refuse an application for a Job Search Payment (JSP). The applicant had received a lump sum compensation payment of $115,000 in December 2019, following a workplace injury in 1999. The Department calculated a preclusion period, during which the applicant was ineligible for social security payments, from 27 December 2019 to 21 January 2021. The applicant contended that certain expenditures from the lump sum, including medical expenses, family loans, a vehicle purchase, and gambling, should be deducted to reduce the preclusion period, or that special circumstances existed to alter its operation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the compensation preclusion period had been correctly calculated and, if not, whether any expenditures qualified for deduction. It also had to consider whether the applicant's circumstances constituted "special circumstances" that would justify altering the standard operation of the preclusion period. The underlying public policy for preclusion periods is to prevent individuals from receiving both compensation and social security payments for the same period.

The Tribunal reasoned that none of the expenditures claimed by the applicant qualified for deduction from the lump sum for the purpose of calculating the preclusion period. While acknowledging the applicant had experienced considerable financial and emotional stress, including the collapse of a business and subsequent health issues, the Tribunal found that his current financial hardship was not of an unusual or exceptional quality. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not exercised careful financial management of the compensation payment, which was substantial and equivalent to approximately 4.6 years of Disability Support Pension payments, yet was intended to cover only 56 weeks. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there were no special circumstances to warrant altering the preclusion period.

The decision under review was affirmed. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had subsequently made a further claim for JSP after the expiry of the preclusion period, which was granted.