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

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Di Paolo against a decision of the Social Services Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) regarding her eligibility for parenting payment single, disability support pension, and family tax benefit. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services had determined that Ms Di Paolo was overpaid these benefits due to her being considered a member of a couple and exceeding asset and income limits, which were influenced by her alleged attributable interest in a private trust. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Di Paolo had effectively resigned from this trust and, consequently, whether its assets and income should be attributed to her for social security purposes.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Di Paolo was an attributable stakeholder of the Mandoulidis Family Trust, whether she had validly resigned from her role as trustee and appointor, and whether the assets and income of the trust should be attributed to her. Further, the court needed to ascertain if Ms Di Paolo was a member of a couple for social security purposes and, if so, whether there were any special reasons to depart from that classification. Finally, the court had to consider whether any overpayments of benefits could be written off or waived.

The Tribunal considered extensive documentary evidence, including various versions of trust deeds and meeting minutes, some dated 1999 and others 2003. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the dating and execution of these documents, particularly concerning Ms Di Paolo's purported resignation. The SSAT had previously found that documents supporting Ms Di Paolo's claim of resignation in 1999 were dated February 2003 and appeared to be copies prepared for Centrelink, raising doubts about their legal validity and the joint action required by the trust deed. The Tribunal also heard evidence from a lawyer involved in preparing some of the trust documents, who suggested retrospective amendment. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no sole administrative error or special circumstances that would warrant writing off or waiving the determined debts.