DOMINIQUE KORZENIEWSKI and SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
[2009] AATA 796
•15 October 2009
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 796
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/3150
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re DOMINIQUE KORZENIEWSKI Applicant
And STEFAN GYR
Other Party
And
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms L R Tovey, Member Date 15 October 2009
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal:
(a) sets aside the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 20 June 2008 and the decisions of the Respondent's delegates dated 2 April 2008 and 1 May 2008; and
(b) substitutes a decision that the Applicant be paid youth allowance at the single rate from 10 March 2008.
….......(sgd) Ms LR Tovey........
Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – youth allowance – whether Applicant was living in a marriage-like relationship
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s. 4(2), 4(3).
Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR 546.
Pelkav Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) 102 ALD 22
Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 32 FCR 164.
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 October 2009 Ms LR Tovey, Member BACKGROUND
1. This is an application for a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("SSAT") made on 20 June 2008 that the Applicant be paid youth allowance at the partnered rate from 2 June 2008.
2. The Applicant, who is a university student, claimed youth allowance in February 2008. At that time she was residing with her boyfriend, Stefan Gyr, in a unit in Hay Street, West Perth. On 2 April 2008 the Respondent's delegate decided that the Applicant was entitled to be paid youth allowance at the partnered rate, rather than the single rate, on the ground that she was in a marriage-like relationship with Mr Gyr. As a result of forming that view of the Applicant's relationship with Mr Gyr, the Respondent's delegate took into account Mr Gyr's assets in determining the Applicant's application and decided that she was subject to a 13 week "liquid assets waiting period" before payments could commence.
3. The Applicant requested a review of the decision referred to above. On 1 May 2008 an Authorised Review Officer of the Respondent ("the ARO") affirmed the decision.
4. The Applicant then requested a review of the ARO's decision by the SSAT. On 20 June 2008 the SSAT affirmed the decision of the ARO. On 7 July 2008 the Applicant sought a further review of the SSAT's decision by this Tribunal.
ISSUES AND LEGISLATION
5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was qualified to receive youth allowance on 3 March 2008 when she commenced as a full time student, subject to the "liquid assets waiting period".
6. Youth allowance is provided for by Part 2.11 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) ("the Act"). Section 556 of the Act provides that a person's youth allowance rate is to be worked out using the Youth Allowance Rate Calculator at the end of s. 1067G of the Act. The rates provided for in that section vary according to whether or not the person is a "member of a couple" or "partnered", with a higher rate being paid to a person who is not a member of a couple.
7. Subsections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act define when a person is a member of a couple in the following terms:
"4(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person is a member of a couple for the purposes of this Act if:
(a) the person is legally married to another person and is not, in the Secretary’s opinion (formed as mentioned in subsection (3)), living separately and apart from the other person on a permanent or indefinite basis; or
(b) all of the following conditions are met:
(i) the person has a relationship with a person of the opposite sex (in this paragraph called the partner);
(ii) the person is not legally married to the partner;
(iii) the relationship between the person and the partner is, in the Secretary’s opinion (formed as mentioned in subsections (3) and (3A)), a marriage-like relationship;
(iv)both the person and the partner are over the age of consent applicable in the State or Territory in which they live;
(v)the person and the partner are not within a prohibited relationship for the purposes of section 23B of the Marriage Act 1961.
Member of a couple—criteria for forming opinion about relationship
4(3) In forming an opinion about the relationship between 2 people for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) or subparagraph (2)(b)(iii), the Secretary is to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship including, in particular, the following matters:
(a) the financial aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) any joint ownership of real estate or other major assets and any joint liabilities; and
(ii) any significant pooling of financial resources especially in relation to major financial commitments; and
(iii) any legal obligations owed by one person in respect of the other person; and
(iv) the basis of any sharing of day-to-day household expenses;
(b) the nature of the household, including:
(i) any joint responsibility for providing care or support of children; and
(ii) the living arrangements of the people; and
(iii) the basis on which responsibility for housework is distributed;
(c) the social aspects of the relationship, including:
(i) whether the people hold themselves out as married to each other; and
(ii) the assessment of friends and regular associates of the people about the nature of their relationship; and
(iii) the basis on which the people make plans for, or engage in, joint social activities;
(d) any sexual relationship between the people;
(e) the nature of the people’s commitment to each other, including:
(i) the length of the relationship; and
(ii)the nature of any companionship and emotional support that the people provide to each other; and
(iii)whether the people consider that the relationship is likely to continue indefinitely; and
(iv)whether the people see their relationship as a marriage-like relationship.
4(3A) The Secretary must not form the opinion that the relationship between a person and his or her partner is a marriage-like relationship if the person is living separately and apart from the partner on a permanent or indefinite basis."
8. Section 4(11)(a) of the Act provides that a person is "partnered" for the purposes of the Act if the person is a member of a couple.
9. It is common ground between the parties that the Applicant and Mr Gyr had a relationship with each other during the relevant period, but were not legally married to each other. Both the Applicant and Mr Gyr were over the relevant age of consent, and were not within a prohibited relationship for the purposes of s. 23B of the Marriage Act 1961. The requirements of s. 4(2)(b)(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the Act were satisfied. It was also clear from the evidence that the Applicant and Mr Gyr were not living separately or apart from each other on a permanent or indefinite basis at the relevant time, so the limitation provided for in s. 4(3A) of the Act does not arise. The Applicant and Mr Gyr will therefore have been members of a couple if during the relevant periods, or part thereof, their relationship was, in my opinion, a "marriage-like relationship". In forming that opinion I am required to have regard to the matters specified in s. 4(3) of the Act.
10. The resolution of that issue will also resolve the dispute as to the commencement date of the Applicant's youth allowance. Section 549A of the Act provides that, subject to certain exceptions, if the value of a person’s liquid assets is more than the person’s maximum reserve on the day on which the person becomes qualified for, or claims, youth allowance the person is subject to a liquid assets waiting period. Section 14A of the Act provides that the Applicant's "maximum reserve" would be combined liquid assets $5,000 if she were a member of a couple, and individually held liquid assets of $2,500 if she were not a member of a couple. The combined liquid assets of the Applicant and Mr Gyr would well exceed $5,000. However, the liquid assets of the Applicant individually would not have exceeded $2,500 at the relevant times, when the expenses referred to in s. 14A(1)(e) of the Act were deducted from the balances of her bank accounts: see paragraphs 64-66 of the Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions. Therefore the question of whether the Applicant is subject to a liquid assets waiting period may be resolved by determining whether she was a member of a couple.
11. The Respondent accepts that if I determine that the Applicant and Mr Gyr are not members of a couple then the Applicant does not have to serve a liquid assets waiting period. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant would then be entitled to payment of youth allowance from 10 March 2008, which is the usual one week after she became qualified for youth allowance when recommencing full time study on 3 March 2008.
12. The critical issue for my determination is therefore whether, in my opinion, (formed as mentioned in s. 4(3) and (3A) of the Act) the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Gyr was a marriage-like relationship in March 2008 and subsequently.
APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
13. In Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2006) 151 FCR 546 at 555-6, [46] French J, summarised the approach required of the Tribunal when considering whether two persons were in a marriage-like relationship in the following terms:
"Having regard to the current provisions of s 4(3) and the approaches discussed in the earlier authorities mentioned, a decision-maker concerned with whether an unmarried person is in a marriage-like relationship with another person of the opposite sex:
(1) Must have regard to their interpersonal relationship as a whole not limited by the factors listed in s 4(3).
(2) Must have regard to each of:
(a) the financial aspects of the relationship;
(b) the nature of the household;
(c) the social aspects of the relationship;
(d) any sexual relationship between the people; and
(e) the nature of the people’s commitment to each other.
(3) In having regard to the preceding five matters, must have regard to all factors relevant to each and, in particular, must have regard to the factors listed under each heading in s 4(3).
(4) Must specifically consider the total picture of the relationship created by all of these factors bearing in mind that consideration must be given to those which weigh against a marriage-like relationship and those which weigh in favour of it.
(5) Must undertake the preceding consideration bearing in mind that a marriage-like relationship is not disclosed solely by any one of the following matters:
(a) financial cooperation;
(b) cohabitation;
(c) a sexual relationship;
(d) cooperative household arrangements; or
(e) mutual commitment."
14. As French J also noted, the judgment to be made is difficult and, once out of the range of obvious cases falling within the core concept of “marriage-like”, will be attended by a degree of uncertainty. His Honour recognised that it may be that different decision-makers on the same facts could quite reasonably come up with different answers.
15. Also in Pelka, at 544, [39], French J endorsed the statement of O'Loughlin J in Staunton-Smith v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1991) 32 FCR 164 at 173 that:
"… it is not sufficient to merely note that a couple are sharing accommodation, nor is it sufficient to note that one is financially dependent on the other; it is necessary to delve deeper to find the reasons for those arrangements. Those reasons will be better indicators in determining the correct nature of their relationship."
16. In Pelka, at pages 556-7, [52], French J expressed the view that the reference to "pooling" in s. 4(3)(a)(iii) of the Act was to the putting of resources into a common stock or fund, sharing in common and combining for the common benefit. It involved something more than financial cooperation or separate contributions to different elements of household expense. In relation to cooperation, French J stated at 557, [53]:
"Cooperation is not identified as a specific factor in s 4(3) of the Act. That is not to say cooperative behaviour may not be taken into account for the matters listed in s 4(3) are not exhaustive. But cooperation of itself does not take a relationship very far down the path towards characterisation as 'marriage-like'. Cooperation is an indispensable feature of human society and of a multiplicity of different kinds of relationships within human society including the purely commercial. The same may be said of 'mutual benefit' which attaches to a large range of arrangements between people."
17.Later, French J stated at 559, [61]:
"A decision-maker in applying the matters set out in s 4(3) should acknowledge that they are non-exhaustive and at least indicate that consideration has been given to whether there might be any other factors relevant to the difficult judgment of whether a 'marriage-like' relationship exists. Each of the individual matters listed in s 4(3) is accompanied by a non-exhaustive list of factors. Again, the decision-maker in each case should consider whether there are any other factors relevant to the particular matter listed."
18. The decision in Pelka identifies the approach which I am bound to take in considering whether the Applicant and Mr Gyr were in a marriage-like relationship during the relevant periods.
19. In a subsequent appeal by Ms Pelka from the decision of the Tribunal on remittal, the Full Federal Court noted, in relation to s. 4(3) of the Act, that:
"The essential requirement of the provision, however, is that the decision maker must have regard to the nature of the commitment of two people to each other. It is clearly relevant to that matter to have regard to the fact that a commitment that each of those persons has to each other is different from the commitment that each person has to any other person."
(see Pelkav Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) 102 ALD 22 at [30]).
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
20. I will firstly consider the particular matters identified in s. 4(3)(a)-(e) of the Act, before turning to consider the facts established by the evidence more generally.
21. The facts which are relevant to my determination are set out in the Section 37 Documents submitted by the Respondent, the annexures to the Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions and the oral evidence of the Applicant and Mr Gyr before me. I found the Applicant and Mr Gyr to be honest witnesses who gave straightforward answers to the questions which were asked of them about their relationship. Their evidence was not contradicted by any evidence which was adduced by the Respondent. In those circumstances I find that the Applicant and Mr Gyr gave a generally accurate account of the features of their relationship. The primary facts not being subject to any significant dispute in that regard, the more difficult question is how those facts should be assessed and characterised for the purposes of making the assessment of the relationship required by the Act.
Financial Aspects of the Relationship
22. The evidence establishes that the Applicant and Mr Gyr have two joint assets and liabilities. The first is the lease of the West Perth unit in which they resided, which formed part of the Section 37 Documents. This was a tenancy for an unfixed term terminable by the lessor on 60 days notice without cause, and terminable by the lessees on 21 days notice without cause. The second asset was the insurance policy for the contents in the West Perth Unit which was held jointly by the Applicant and Mr Gyr.
23. The circumstances in which the Applicant and Mr Gyr entered into these arrangements were described by the Applicant and Mr Gyr in the following manner in their evidence before me, which I accept.
24. The Applicant made the decision to move out of her parents' home together with Mr Gyr and another friend. At that time Mr Gyr lived in Maylands and the friend's parents were moving interstate. The three friends decided that it would be good to move out together and maybe live somewhere closer to their university. The Applicant was "kind of 50/50 on the idea because I was pretty comfortable living at home but the idea of moving out with some friends was good as well". The three friends started looking for apartments together. As they were doing so the parents of the friend decided to provide an apartment for the friend and the friend's sister. That left the Applicant and Mr Gyr, who the Applicant said were "committed to an extent that we were going to be moving out". In cross-examination, however, the Applicant accepted that she could have remained living at home with her parents.
25. The Applicant and Mr Gyr had looked at a number of apartments that were a bit out of their price range, when they saw the advertisement of a two bedroom apartment in West Perth. When they got to the apartment they realised that the second bedroom was a fit out balcony area. However, the apartment was in the right price range, was close to university and was suitable for them, so they entered into the lease.
26. The Applicant said that she would have preferred a bedroom of her own because she wanted to have her own space, although she accepted that in a two bedroom apartment she and Mr Gyr would probably still have slept in the same bedroom.
27. Both the Applicant and Mr Gyr indicated that they shared the rent payments on a 50/50 basis. Mr Gyr was asked about a bank statement which showed that he had made two consecutive fortnightly rent payments in January 2008. Mr Gyr was unsure of the reasons for this, but thought that they were just getting used to the arrangement and may have gotten muddled up. He was sure that the Applicant would have made it up to him. He accepted that, one or twice from January to June when the Applicant was short of money, he may have paid some bills and asked her to pay them back later. The Applicant also referred to one occasion in March when she "wasn't at the computer and I think I remember calling Steven and asking him if he could pay it [the rent] for me and I then transferred the money into his account, I think the next day". Despite these occasions, I am satisfied from the evidence of the Applicant and Mr Gyr that they equally shared the ultimate burden of payment of the rent for their unit.
28. As to the contract for contents insurance, the Applicant told me that she and the Applicant took out the insurance together because there was a significant price difference between insuring the contents of the unit in one policy as opposed to two.
29. Otherwise the Applicant and Mr Gyr's evidence, which I accept, was that they shared the ongoing household expenses equally.
30. The Applicant gave evidence that they had their own separate items of furniture and other household items at the unit. They had not purchased any items together.
31. The Applicant and Mr Gyr maintained separate bank accounts. When the Applicant was short of money in the first half of 2008, she sought assistance from her grandmother and mother, rather than Mr Gyr. Mr Gyr did have a shareholding, but he did not use this for day-to-day expenses or offer to loan money to the Applicant. The Applicant's evidence was that she did not know how much money Mr Gyr had or what he did with it.
32. The Applicant and Mr Gyr each own separate cars, although as they had only one parking space only Mr Gyr's vehicle was kept at the unit. Apart from a couple of occasions, when the Applicant travelled in the car Mr Gyr was driving. The Applicant and Mr Gyr split petrol expenses.
33. There was some cross-examination of the Applicant and Mr Gyr in relation to bank account statements which were attached to the Secretary's statement of facts and contentions. I do not consider that this cross-examination established that the financial situation of the Applicant and Mr Gyr was other than indicated in their other evidence.
34. The above evidence demonstrates that there was no pooling of financial resources between the Applicant and Mr Gyr. There were no legal obligations owed between them, and they shared day-to-day household expenses equally. The financial relationship was essentially what one would expect of two university friends sharing accommodation together. Overall, the separate financial arrangements between the Applicant and Mr Gyr are a factor which I consider counts against the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
35. In reaching that conclusion I acknowledge that, as the Respondent submitted, the Applicant and Mr Gyr were a young couple just starting out in their adult life and so would not be expected to have accumulated major assets or engaged in significant pooling of financial resources. That separate financial affairs were maintained during a period when the Applicant was in some financial difficulty and Mr Gyr had the capacity to assist is a factor which counts significantly against the existence of a marriage like relationship. The financial support which a married couple would ordinarily be expected to give each other in those circumstances was absent.
Nature of the Household
36. The Applicant and Mr Gyr do not have any children, so the issue of responsibility for providing care and support does not arise in this case.
37. The fact that the Applicant and Mr Gyr lived in the same unit, shared a bedroom and bed and probably would have shared a bedroom if they had lived in a two-bedroom unit is a factor which counts in favour of the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
38. The Applicant gave evidence, which I again accept, as to the manner in which responsibility for housework was distributed in the following terms:
"And what about the division of household chores, like doing the washing and the cleaning; who does that?‑‑‑Well, I guess we wash our own stuff. When we cook food we wash our own dishes essentially. When we have breakfast I always - we always wash our own stuff afterwards, and then when, I guess, it’s Uni times and dishes sort of stack up I guess we take turns. One person will do the cleaning and then the next week the other person will do the cleaning.
What about washing clothes, do you do that together in one lot or‑ ‑ ‑ I guess it sort of depends. It depends if we’ve - I guess like towels and things like that we do all those together, but a lot of the time a lot of my clothes are hand wash, so I do my own hand washing.
And what about things that aren’t hand washed?‑‑‑Well, I guess we probably do all the black stuff together."
39. In that manner, the Applicant and Mr Gyr appear to have taken an equally shared responsibility for household chores. It was not a case of one person taking care of the other, and that is a factor counting against the existence of a marriage-like relationship although it is far from compelling in itself.
Social Aspects of the Relationship
40. There is no evidence that the Applicant or Mr Gyr ever held themselves out as married to each other. That is a factor counting against the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
41. The evidence before me does not enable any conclusion to be drawn as to how the friends and regular associates of the Applicant and Mr Gyr assessed their relationship.
42. The Applicant and Mr Gyr attended university together, and were undertaking the same course. The socialised regularly, but far from exclusively with each other. The Applicant's evidence, which I accept, was to the following effect:
"Well, I guess we share friends, a lot of friends, because we are university together and we’re in the same year group but, like, a lot of girls do with boyfriends. I have my girlfriends that I go out with on the weekends and he has his friends that he sees, we don’t do everything together. In fact, because we study, we actually spend a lot of our spare time apart because we see each other all the time at uni, so we actually, you know, we spend a lot of our social time with other people."
43. The Applicant also said that she and Mr Gyr would sometimes visit her family members together but did not always do so. At Christmas Mr Gyr would spend time with his sister on Christmas Eve, which was when his family usually celebrated. Mr Gyr would spend Christmas day with the Applicant's family.
44. The Applicant and Mr Gyr spent their birthdays together with each other and other friends. The Applicant also had a family celebration for her birthday which Mr Gyr attended.
45. I would regard the nature of the social relationship between Mr Gyr as consistent with that of a girlfriend and boyfriend who were attending university together. It was also not inconsistent with the social affairs of a couple who were in a marriage-like relationship. This is not, therefore, a consideration which counts significantly either towards or against the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
Sexual Relationship
46. The Applicant accepted that she and Mr Gyr shared a sexual relationship throughout the relevant period. The fact that there was a sexual relationship between the Applicant and Mr Gyr does count towards the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
Nature of the Parties' Commitment to each other
47. The evidence of the Applicant and Mr Gyr, which I accept, was that they regarded each other as either friends or boyfriend and girlfriend, but not as married or de facto partners, during the relevant period.
48. The Applicant and Mr Gyr had been boyfriend and girlfriend for about two years before the Applicant's application for youth allowance in January 2008. They were still together at the date of the hearing before me in June 2009. In late 2007 they had travelled together to the United Kingdom and Europe, where they shared double accommodation and the same bed and travelled at partner rates. They also went to India together with other students in 2008 as part of an exchange program arranged by the University.
49. In relation to the nature of their commitment to each other, the Applicant said in cross-examination:
"What’s your future plans for the relationship, are there any future plans?‑‑‑I don’t know, I guess it seems to be this common thing that we should probably be talking about our future, but we – I guess we don’t really. I mean, we’re finishing – we’re both finishing our degree at the end of this year, and I’ve got plans I think to travel if I can, you know, save up some money and travel in a year or so time. But that’s – I think that’s a plan I’ve got for myself, so I don’t - at this point, he’s not necessarily included in that plan as such, but I mean it’s not – I don’t look to the future and see us going to things together, we have our own plans that we do for ourselves.
Do you see the relationship coming to an end in the near future?‑‑‑I don’t know, I don’t really think about it coming to an end, I don’t really think about it going off and turning into something different, like I just don’t – I just don’t think about it that much.
What do you think would have to happen to your relationship for you to think that you were a member of a couple?‑‑‑I don’t know, I guess we’d probably have to – I guess I – for me to feel inside that we have that – an extra set of commitment to each other, that we are – I don’t know, I guess I can’t really explain it, but I guess it’s more about how I feel and how I feel about it."
50. Mr Gyr said:
" Well, I guess I figure our relationship is pretty much exactly the same as two people being friends, the only thing which is really different is that we have a sexual relationship."
51. When asked in cross-examination what he saw as the future of their relationship, Mr Gyr responded:
"I don’t know, I guess I’ll just take it as it comes. Because I guess we really could go different ways when getting jobs and that sort of thing, it’s like if any of us decide to go over east or even internationally, I don’t know – really know what would happen then, I guess we’d probably separate or whatever, I’m not too sure.
How would you feel if that separation came about?‑‑‑I guess I’d be upset, but I’d deal with it."
52. I would regard the nature of the commitment between Mr Gyr and the Applicant as inconsistent with the existence of a marriage-like relationship. While they have been together for a number of years, they have not made a commitment to remain together beyond this year. When their studies end travel and work plans may well see them separate. They have not made any plans to stay together, or as to how they would arrange their affairs after university to see that this occurred. They regard each other as friends rather than as a de facto married couple. I regard this as a factor counting strongly against the existence of a marriage-like relationship.
Overview of the Relationship
53. As I have noted, some of the factors which I have identified, and am required to consider, count in favour of the existence of a marriage-like relationship. Other considerations count against the existence of such a relationship, while some factors are neutral or at least do not count strongly one way or the other.
54. Looking at the overall picture of the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Gyr, I do not think that it should be characterised as marriage-like. I regard the lack of any commitment between the Applicant and Mr Gyr at this point in time to remain together for the long term as a significant factor in reaching this conclusion. Their separate financial affairs and the fact that they neither view themselves nor hold themselves out as a married or de facto couple is also significant. The arrangements for sharing expenses and household chores were consistent those of university friends sharing accommodation. The Applicant's motivation for sharing accommodation was not merely a desire to live with Mr Gyr, but to experience independent living closer to university with initially two friends. The social arrangements were consistent with a boyfriend and girlfriend attending university together.
55. Taking all of the above matters and the facts I have found into account, I am unable to form the opinion that the Applicant and Mr Gyr were or are in a marriage-like relationship. To the contrary, I am of the view that they were not in such a relationship.
56. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the composite picture of the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Gyr at the relevant time. While I have had regard to the particular matters identified in s. 4(3) of the Act in the manner described above, I have recognised that those matters, and the list of factors relating to each matter, are non-exclusive. In respect of each of those matters and factors I have considered whether there are any other factors relevant to the judgment I am required to make and, where I have concluded that there are other factors, had regard to them in the manner described above.
57. For these reasons I am unable to form the opinion (formed as mentioned in s. 4(3) and (3A) of the Act) that the relationship between the Applicant and Mr Gyr was, during the relevant periods, a marriage-like relationship.
58. It follows that the Applicant was entitled to receive youth allowance at the single, rather than the partnered rate. Further, when Mr Gyr's assets are left out of account, the Applicant was not required to serve a 13 week liquid assets waiting period.
DECISION
59.For the above reasons, I would set aside the decision of the SSAT under review, and the decisions of the Respondent's delegates under review by the SSAT. I would substitute a decision that the Applicant is entitled to payment of youth allowance at the single rate from 10 March 2008.
I certify that the 59 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms LR Tovey, Member
Signed: ...............(sgd) Ms L Huynh...........................
AssociateDates of Hearing: 12 June 2009
Date of Decision 15 October 2009
Representatives for the Applicant Ms C Adams
Representatives for the Respondent Ms M Conlon
Solicitors for the Applicant Centrelink Legal Services Branch
0
2
0