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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr George Hajjar against a decision of the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding his eligibility for Newstart allowance. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Hajjar's assets exceeded the allowable limit due to intra-familial financial transactions, specifically a $400,000 transfer. The case was heard by Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the true nature of the $400,000 transaction between Mr Hajjar and his son, Fadi. Specifically, the Tribunal had to ascertain whether this transfer constituted a loan, with an expectation of repayment, or a gift. This determination was crucial for assessing whether Mr Hajjar's assets, and consequently his eligibility for the Newstart allowance, exceeded the statutory limit.

The Tribunal considered conflicting evidence regarding the transaction. While Mr Hajjar and his wife described the transfer as a loan prior to July 2019, their accounts shifted to describing it as a gift thereafter, with no expectation of repayment. The Tribunal noted that Mr Hajjar was a meticulous record keeper and a respected patriarch, whose family followed his financial directions. However, the Tribunal found it impossible to definitively link the various payments made by Mr Hajjar's sons to the repayment of the $400,000 transfer or to another loan. The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in assessing witness credibility, particularly when some participants appeared via video link while others were on the telephone, and the previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing was conducted entirely by telephone.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that, based on the material presented, it could not determine with sufficient confidence the nature of the financial transactions or whether the payments from the sons related to the $400,000 transfer. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and remitted for redetermination.