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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Samantha Daniels for a review of a decision affirming the Department of Social Services' determination that she had been overpaid parenting benefit. Ms Daniels had received approximately $360,000 into her bank account over an eight-month period, which she did not declare to Centrelink. She contended that these funds were for her father's use and benefit, not her own. The Tribunal, presided over by N A Manetta SM, heard the matter afresh and ultimately affirmed the decision under review.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the substantial sums deposited into Ms Daniels' account constituted her income for the purposes of calculating parenting benefit, and if not, whether they should be disregarded as being for her father's use or benefit. This raised questions concerning the presumption of advancement and the potential for a resulting trust to arise, as well as the capacity of the Tribunal to recognise and adjudicate on such trusts.

The Tribunal considered that if the monies were received by Ms Daniels for her own use and benefit, they would be counted as her income. However, Ms Daniels argued they were for her father's benefit. The Tribunal noted that while a presumption of advancement might arise given the father-daughter relationship, this presumption could be rebutted, potentially leading to a resulting trust where Ms Daniels would hold the monies for her father. Crucially, the Tribunal held that it was not a court with the power to declare the terms upon which money is held on trust. It further reasoned that it was inappropriate for the Tribunal to determine whether a resulting trust had arisen, particularly where a court might impose conditions on such a declaration, as demonstrated in *Nelson v Nelson*. Therefore, unless Ms Daniels could persuade the Tribunal that the monies would be unconditionally held on trust for her father by a court, her claim that the funds should be disregarded as her income would fail.

The Tribunal concluded that Ms Daniels had not been entitled to parenting benefit during the relevant period and that a debt had been properly raised against her. The decision under review was affirmed.