Croker and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 230
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/3774

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re Clayton Croker

Applicant

And

Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member A K Britton
Date6 April 2011
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
........................[sgd]......................
Senior Member A K Britton

CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – applicant’s DSP cancelled – cancellation decision affirmed by succession of decision-makers - applicant’s fresh claim for DSP granted and payment commenced – whether Tribunal had power to backdate DSP to date of original cancellation decision – whether applicant made incorrect claim for Newstart Allowance – whether applicant incapacitated – Tribunal lacked power to disturb decisions of previous decision-makers – decision under review affirmed
Croker and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1224
Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1635
Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (No. 2) [2008] FCA 340
Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth)
Social Security Act 1999 (Cth) – ss 593, 601, 601(1A) – (1F)
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) – ss 13, 15, 42, 126, and cl 3(1) Sch 2 and cl 11, Sch 2
REASONS FOR DECISION
6 April 2011  Senior Member A K Britton
1.      Mr Croker seeks review of a decision made by the Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (the Secretary) and affirmed by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) to pay Disability Support Pension (DSP) from 29 April 2008.
2.      Mr Croker was granted DSP in March 1994. In September 2005, the Secretary decided to cancel Mr Croker’s DSP but continued payments until 6 June 2006 pending review of that decision. The cancellation decision was affirmed by the SSAT and on 13 April 2007, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Croker and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] AATA 1224. Mr Croker was unsuccessful in his appeal to the Federal Court: Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 1635. Mr Croker’s appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court has been stayed until such time as he lodges security for the respondent’s costs: Croker v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (No. 2) [2008] FCA 340.
3. In May 2008 Mr Croker lodged a fresh claim for DSP. On review, the SSAT set aside Centrelink’s decision not to grant DSP and decided that DSP was payable from the date the new claim was lodged with Centrelink – 7 May 2008. That decision was implemented, but with an earlier start date — 29 April 2008 — being the date Mr Croker first contacted Centrelink in relation to his 2008 claim. The revised decision was apparently made under s 126 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act).
4.      In April 2010, Mr Croker wrote to Centrelink asking that he be paid arrears…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Croker, the applicant, and the Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the respondent. Croker had previously been receiving a Disability Support Pension (DSP) which was cancelled, and this cancellation was affirmed by successive decision-makers. Subsequently, Croker lodged a fresh claim for DSP, which was granted and payment commenced. The central issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to backdate the DSP to the date of the original cancellation decision. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Croker had made an incorrect claim for Newstart Allowance and if Croker was incapacitated.

The court examined the authority of the Tribunal in light of the decisions made by previous decision-makers. It concluded that the Tribunal lacked the power to alter or disturb the decisions of the earlier decision-makers. The court found that the Tribunal's role was to assess the correctness of its own decisions and not to revisit or modify the actions of prior decision-makers.

Based on this reasoning, the court upheld the original decision, affirming that the Tribunal did not have the power to backdate the DSP payment to the date of the initial cancellation decision. Furthermore, the court found that Croker's claim for Newstart Allowance was not incorrect and that there was no evidence to support a finding of incapacity. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established