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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the Secretary, Department of Social Services' decision to reject his claim for a job commitment bonus. The Applicant had commenced full-time employment on 7 April 2015 and completed 12 months of continuous employment on 6 April 2016, thereby qualifying for the bonus. The Applicant lodged his claim on 4 August 2016, which was outside the prescribed 90-day period. The Applicant contended that he received misleading information from Centrelink regarding the timeframe for lodging his claim, and that the 90-day period should have commenced from a later date due to an erroneous payment he received.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had lodged his claim for the job commitment bonus within the requisite timeframe, and if not, whether there were special circumstances that prevented him from doing so. The relevant legislation, section 27D of the *Social Security Administration Act 1999* (Cth), stipulated that a claim must be made within 90 days of qualification, but allowed for an extension if the Secretary was satisfied that special circumstances prevented the claim from being lodged within that period.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant qualified for the bonus on 6 April 2016, meaning the initial 90-day period for lodging his claim expired on 5 July 2016. The Applicant's claim was lodged on 4 August 2016. While the Applicant argued that he was not adequately advised of the deadline and that correspondence from Centrelink was misleading, the Tribunal found no evidence of special circumstances that prevented him from lodging his claim within the required timeframe. The Applicant himself acknowledged that he had no medical condition or other extreme circumstances that prevented him from lodging his claim. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's contention regarding misleading advice did not constitute a special circumstance that prevented him from lodging his claim in time.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the Applicant had failed to lodge his claim within the statutory timeframe and that no special circumstances existed to warrant an extension.