Groom and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2007] AATA 1431

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1431

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No T2007/1137

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION		)
Re		PETER GROOM

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal Associate Professor Bruce Davis AM (Part-time Member)

Date15 June 2007

PlaceHobart

Decision

Pursuant to s29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and upon written application by the applicant dated 3 April 2007, the Tribunal extends the time for the making of an application for review of the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal dated 8 December 2006.

Reasons for decision are stated.

[Sgd B W Davis]

Part-Time Member

CATCHWORDS

Social Security - disability support pension (DSP) - application refused - SSAT decision - applicant seeks extension of time - disability and circumstances - extension of time granted.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 - s29(7)

Social Security Act 1991 and Amendments

Re Johnston and Commonwealth (5 January 1990) AATA 5619

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

Hunter Valley Developments v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344

REASONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DECISION

15 June 2007 Associate Professor Bruce Davis AM (Part-time Member)   

The Application

1.      The applicant, Peter Groom, seeks an extension of time to lodge an application for review of an SSAT decision dated 8 December 2006, rejecting his claim for disability support pension, because he was assessed as being subject to a lump sum preclusion period from 29 August 2002 to 19 April 2017.

2.      The extension of time was opposed by the respondent on grounds the applicant had taken nearly four months to lodge an application for review, instead of the 28 days the Act permitted, moreover no grounds  had been offered other than the SSAT decision had greatly distressed the applicant, who had taken time to come to terms with it.

Evidence

3.      A hearing was conducted in Devonport on 22 May 2007, the applicant being self-represented and the respondent by Mr Brian Sparkes.    During presentation of evidence Mr Groom tendered a medical report from Dr John Fisher of the Patrick Street Clinic, Ulverstone, dated 11 April 2007, which indicated the applicant was under extreme stress, due to financial difficulties and loss of his livelihood, suffering episodes of severe depression, with high risk of self-harm.

4.      Dr Fisher’s medical report said in part, “… he currently has little right arm or leg function, and we are still stabilising his chronic pain…”.

The report continued:

“He is currently financial insecure with no possibility of income from employment and has no financial reserves, and is apparently being denied access to Centrelink.   His ability to negotiate `the system’ is significantly diminished owing to his depressive state, and is apparently being denied access to Centrelink.   His ability to negotiate `the system’ is significantly diminished owing to his depressive symptoms of loss of self esteem, reduced drive and motivation, and a pervasive sense of hopelessness.   He is frequently suicidal, and has been treated in hospital for overdoses.    I am concerned that the renewal of the appeals process initiated last December by his partner, has resulted in an aggravation of his symptoms, and consider him to be at high risk of self harm.    I am reviewing him weekly and his partner is controlling his medications.”

5.      Mr Sparkes said that in view of the circumstances, the Department would no longer oppose an extension of time for review, but there was a difficult road ahead for Mr Groom, as if he wished to seek review of the SSAT decision, stronger evidence would be required.    He was, however, free to lodge a new application for DSP at any time, if he felt the medical evidence would support such a claim.

6.      The Tribunal agrees that in view of Mr Groom’s financial and medical circumstances an extension of time appears warranted, however following Johnson and Commonwealth (5 January 1990 AATA 5619, it is necessary to consider a number of factors in determining whether it is proper to do so:

·     Whether or not the applicant rested on his rights or took action to make the decision maker aware that the decision was contested;

·     Any prejudice to the respondent that would be caused by granting the extension of time;

·     Any wider prejudice to the general public in terms of disruption to established practices;

·     The merits of the substantive application; and

·     Fairness in granting the extension of time as between the applicant and other persons in a like position.

7.      The Tribunal has weighed these factors and in its view Mr Groom’s claim of being devastated by rejection of his claim for DSP and the need for time to come to terms with it rings true.   While any delay in a review process creates costs to the parties, Mr Groom’s urgent need for medical treatment takes high priority, and matters cannot be resolved until he is sufficiently able to pursue his case.

Heading

8. An extension of time is granted to the applicant under s29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, but the matter should be kept under review and a conference between the parties conducted three months from the date of this order, unless other circumstances intervene.

I certify that the 8 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Associate Professor B W Davis AM (Part-time Member)

Signed: K L Miller (Administrative Assistant)

Date/s of Hearing  22 May 2007
Date of Decision  15 June 2007
Counsel for the Applicant         self-represented
Solicitor for the Applicant          
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr Brian Sparkes
Solicitor for the Respondent      Centrelink Legal Services