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

This case concerned the applicants' eligibility for an age pension, specifically whether they met the asset test. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services contended that the applicants should be attributed with the assets of Dunstan Nominees, a private company, which would result in their combined assets exceeding the threshold for the age pension. The matter came before the Tribunal for review.

The central legal issue was whether the applicants were "attributable stakeholders" of Dunstan Nominees and, if so, what their "asset attribution percentage" should be, pursuant to Part 3.18 of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth) and the *Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2017* (Cth). This involved determining if Dunstan Nominees was a "designated private company" and if the applicants passed the "control test" or "source test" in relation to it.

The Tribunal found that Dunstan Nominees was a designated private company. Crucially, it determined that the applicant, Mr Greyson, passed the control test under section 1207Q(2) of the Act. This was based on evidence that, while his associates (his children) held the direct voting interests and capital entitlements, Mr Greyson retained significant influence and control over the company's day-to-day operations and decision-making, acting as director and secretary. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' substantial contributions to the acquisition of assets by the company and the reasonable foreseeability of future benefits, concluding that the circumstances did not provide a sufficient basis to determine that the applicants were not attributable stakeholders or to reduce their asset attribution percentage below 100%.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants' combined assets, including those of Dunstan Nominees attributed to them at 100%, exceeded the prescribed asset threshold for the age pension. The decision under review, which affirmed the Secretary's assessment, was therefore affirmed.