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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a preclusion period imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on whether the Applicant was subject to a compensation preclusion period and, if so, whether it was correctly calculated. The Applicant also sought to argue that special circumstances existed to justify treating his compensation payment as not having been made.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had received compensation payments as defined by the Act, whether these payments related to the same event and should be aggregated for the preclusion period calculation, and if Centrelink had correctly calculated the length of that preclusion period. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the Applicant's circumstances were "special" enough to warrant the exercise of the Secretary's discretion under s 1184K of the Act to disregard the compensation payment.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had received two lump sum compensation payments totalling $103,518.60, which met the definition of compensation payments under the Act. It was established that these payments related to the same event and were correctly aggregated from the date of the last payment, as per s 1171. The Tribunal confirmed that 50% of the total sum, amounting to $51,759.30, was the compensation component subject to the preclusion period calculation under s 1170(4). The Tribunal found the calculated preclusion period of 4 June 2015 to 22 June 2016 to be correct. Regarding the special circumstances, the Tribunal applied the established jurisprudence, noting that "special circumstances" refers to situations that are unusual, uncommon, or exceptional, and markedly different from the usual run of cases. The Applicant's circumstances, including some care of a child and the expenditure of a significant portion of the compensation on drugs, were found not to be sufficiently special to enliven the discretion under s 1184K.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant was subject to a correctly calculated compensation preclusion period and that no special circumstances justified the exercise of discretion to disregard the compensation payment.