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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Houben against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to cancel his age pension payments. Mr Houben contended that the agency had deceived a Deputy President of the Tribunal in a 2015 decision, leading to a manifest error in the assessment of his assets. The Tribunal was therefore asked to reconsider the percentage attribution of his company shares for the purposes of the assets test.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were grounds to reconsider a previously decided matter, specifically the percentage attribution of Mr Houben's shares in a private company. The Tribunal was required to determine if a manifest error, caused by alleged misconduct of the agency, had occurred, thereby justifying a review of the 2015 decision. This involved assessing whether the circumstances met the limited criteria for reconsidering a prior Tribunal determination.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the hearing was de novo and that reconsideration of a previous decision is permissible in exceptional circumstances, particularly where there has been a manifest error caused by agency misconduct. Mr Houben alleged such misconduct, claiming he was deceived in 2013 when he completed a Private Company form as part of his age pension application. He had stated he held 49 shares and his son 51 shares, and that the company's assets were approximately $200,000. The Tribunal noted that if the 49% attribution percentage was applied to the company's 2019/20 financial statements, Mr Houben's assets would exceed the threshold, justifying the cancellation of his pension. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of misconduct or deception by the agency in the 2013 application process that would constitute a manifest error warranting a reconsideration of the percentage attribution.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Houben's age pension payments, finding that his assets, when assessed under the applicable attribution percentage, exceeded the assets test threshold.