Kaello; Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services an D
[2003] AATA 490
•30 May 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 490
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/21
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICESApplicant
And
NELIA KAELLO
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Member Date30 May 2003
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ....................(Sgd)....................
Mr R G Kenny
Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY - widow allowance - absence from Australia - whether residential qualifications satisfied
Social Security Act 1991 ss 7, 408BA
Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444
Re Clifopoulos and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 36 ALD 745
Re Issa and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALN 177
Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Mosca [1998] AATA 586REASONS FOR DECISION
30 May 2003 Mr R G Kenny, Member The Application
1. Nelia Kaello (the respondent) lodged a claim for widow allowance, which is payable under the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act), on 2 August 2002 and, on 5 August 2002 (see T6), a Centrelink officer, as delegate for the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (the applicant), rejected that claim on the basis that the respondent did not meet one of the qualifying criteria for the allowance to be paid (see T14). That decision was affirmed on 12 August 2002 by an authorised review officer (see T21). On 13 December 2002, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (see T2) set aside the decision and determined that the respondent was residentially qualified for the widow allowance. On 9 January 2003, the applicant sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) (see T1).
Appearances
2. The respondent attended the hearing and was represented by Ms Heyworth-Smith of counsel. Mr Ffrench appeared on behalf of the applicant.
3. At the hearing, the documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 were taken into evidence as exhibit 1 (T1-T29) as well as the following:
Exhibit 2: a credit advice confirmation from Westpac Banking Corporation, dated 25 June 2002; and
Exhibit 3: a credit advice confirmation from Westpac Banking Corporation, dated 17 July 2002.
Issues and Legislation
4. The issue for the Tribunal is whether or not the respondent meets the residence requirements in order to qualify for widow allowance and the relevant provisions of the Act read:
“7(2) An Australian resident is a person who:
(a) resides in Australia; and
(b) is one of the following:
(i)an Australian citizen;
(ii) the holder of a permanent visa;
(iii) a special category visa holder who is a protected SCV holder.
7(3) In deciding for the purposes of this Act whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to:
(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia; and
(b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia; and
(c) the nature and extent of the person's employment, business or financial ties with Australia; and
(d) the nature and extent of the person's assets located in Australia; and
(e) the frequency and duration of the person's travel outside Australia; and
(f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia.
…
408BA(2) Subject to section 408BB, a woman is qualified for widow allowance in respect of a period if:
(a) she has turned 50; and
(b) she was a member of a couple and since turning 40:
(i) her partner died; or
(ii) she separated from her partner; or
(iii) she divorced from her husband; and
(c) she satisfies the Secretary that she has no recent workforce experience on the day when she makes her claim for the allowance; and
(d) at least one of the following is satisfied:
(i) if the woman entered Australia before 1 April 1996-the woman has been an Australian resident for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks immediately before the day she lodged the claim for the allowance; or
(ia) if the woman entered Australia on or after 1 April 1996 and before the commencement day-the woman has been an Australian resident for a period of, or periods totalling, 104 weeks before the day she lodged the claim for the allowance; or
(ib) if the woman entered Australia on or after the commencement day-the woman has been an Australian resident and in Australia for a period of, or periods totalling, 104 weeks before the day she lodged the claim for the allowance; or
(ii) she has 10 years qualifying Australian residence; or
(iii) she has a qualifying residence exemption for widow allowance; or
(iv) both the woman and her partner were Australian residents at the time when the qualifying event under paragraph (b) occurred; and
(e) throughout the period, she:
(i) is not a member of a couple; and
(ii) throughout the period, she is an Australian resident.
408BA(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), recent workforce experience is employment of 20 hours or more a week for a total of 13 weeks or more at any time during the 12 months immediately before the day the woman lodged the claim for the allowance.
…
408BA(6) In this section: …
commencement day means the day on which Schedule 5 to the Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation Amendment (Social Security) Act 1999 commences. …”
Respondent’s Case
5. The respondent gave the following evidence with the assistance of a translator.
6. The respondent was born on 5 November 1937 and first came to Australia from Russia on 28 March 1995 after she had been divorced in January of that year. Her daughter, Galina Ingram, was in Australia and she stayed with her and returned to Russia on 16 June 1995. Following the death of her mother in Russia on 11 September 1996, the respondent travelled to Australia on a visitor's visa. She arrived on 19 November 1996 and applied for permanent residence. Whilst in Australia, she lived with her daughter and her son-in-law, Mr and Mrs Ingram.
7. In 1997, the respondent was granted a bridging visa, which allowed her to leave Australia for a period to deal with matters relating to her mother’s will. In particular, she was concerned to settle arrangements in respect of property that had been left to her by her mother. She intended to return to Australia when this had been completed. She travelled to Russia for this purpose on 1 September 1997. The property that she inherited was a room in a two-room unit. The other room was inherited by her step-brother. She was able to sell some of her mother’s things and also sold some of the furniture that she owned. This had been located in another unit that she owns and she lived there during her stay in Russia. In that unit, she retained items that were not readily saleable such as a television set, stereo player and basic bedroom furniture. She brought the proceeds of those sales, a sum of (US) $3500, with her when she returned to Australia on 23 July 1998, on which date she was coincidentally granted a permanent residence visa. She said that, at that time, she was aware that she had unfinished business in Russia in relation to the sale of the property.
8. After obtaining permanent residence, the respondent attended English classes, enrolled in Medicare and obtained a tax file number. The English classes involved her attending on three or four days per week for up to four hours on each occasion. She opened a bank account and purchased shares. Again, she lived with her daughter. However, Mr and Mrs Ingram separated in December 1998 and Mrs Ingram leased a unit from 1 December 1998 to 1 December 1999 in conjunction with another woman who, like Mrs Ingram at that time, was a university student. The unit had three bedrooms, two of which were occupied by the other student, who had a child. Mrs Ingram and her mother occupied the other bedroom and the living conditions were very cramped.
9. On 23 March 1999, the respondent returned to Russia in order to effect the sale of the unit that she had inherited. She expected that this would take about six months and she intended to return to Australia thereafter to live with her daughter. She did not return until 18 July 2002. This was because the sale of the unit proved to be more complex than anticipated. She discovered that, under Russian law, she was required to offer her step-brother an opportunity to purchase her share in the property and that such offer was to be left open for twelve months. Also, the documents relating to her ownership had not been properly prepared and she was obliged to go to court in order for this to be remedied. This was achieved in July 1999 and the twelve month option period commenced then. At the end of the twelve month period, her step-brother was not able to purchase the property. She extended the time because a sale to him was still the most effective means of disposing of the property but, eventually, she accepted that this would not happen and she attempted to sell to a third party. She did this by advertising privately and eventually found a purchaser. However, this sale did not eventuate as the purchaser tried to defraud her. Documentation had been prepared and lodged with the relevant authority but the purchaser was not willing to provide payment. After some months, she was able to have the documentation returned to her and she then placed the sale in the hands of an estate agent. The sale was finally effected in May 2002 and the proceeds of the sale were received in June 2002. These were deposited in Mrs Ingram’s account and were used to purchase an air ticket for the respondent to return to Australia on 18 July 2002.
10. During that period in Russia, the unit that she and her step-brother inherited was not permanently occupied. However, from time to time, her step-brother and his wife would spend some time there. Meanwhile, the respondent lived in her own unit which was gifted to her by the factory who employed her in the mid 1960s and which she still owns. It is currently occupied by the daughter of her cousin who pays no rent but who will eventually purchase it from her. The respondent receives a pension which is related to her long period in the work force and which commenced when she turned 55 years of age. The pension is paid into her bank account in Russia and is used to pay the service costs associated with her unit. While in Russia, the pension had not been sufficient to live on and she was able to obtain part-time employment for about 16 hours each week. This lasted for about twelve months. She sold the remainder of her furniture in July 2002 before returning to Australia. Whilst in Russia, she had continued with English lessons by attending classes on one or two days per week for two hours on each occasion.
11. Apart from her step-brother, the respondent has no siblings and no children other than Mrs Ingram. She has no other close relatives, apart from the cousin whose daughter lives in her unit, and had only a few close friends in Russia. She said that she had always intended to live with her daughter and to return to Australia to do so.
12. In cross-examination, the respondent agreed that she could have attempted to sell the property by July 2000 but also said that she wanted to give her step-brother every opportunity to buy it. She agreed that she may have been able, from Australia, to engage the services of an estate agent in Russia to sell the property but she said that she had not been aware of that when she left Australia in March 1999. She agreed that she and her daughter were living in cramped conditions when she returned to Russia in 1999 but said that the only reason that she left Australia was to sell her property. She also agreed that she had not been a party to the lease of the premises where she and Mrs Ingram lived in 1999 but that she now was in that position with their current residence.
Applicant’s Case
13. Mr Ffrench submitted that the relevant provision for determining the respondent’s residential qualification was sub-paragraph 408BA(2)(d)(ia) of the Act which requires that she had been an Australian resident for a a period or periods totalling 104 weeks before she lodged her claim for a widow allowance. He referred to the definition of “Australian resident” and submitted that the respondent satisfied paragraph 7(2)(b) of the Act on 23 July 1998, when she obtained a permanent visa, but that she did not satisfy paragraph 7(2)(a) because she had not resided in Australia for the relevant period.
14. In relation to the factors in sub-section 7(3) of the Act, Mr Ffrench submitted that the respondent has resided in accomodation supplied by others at all times in Australia prior to 20 July 2002 and that she was not party to a lease prior to that time. In contrast, he referred to the ownership, since the mid 1960s, by the respondent of her unit in Russia and to her leaving it in a partly-furnished state when she returned to Australia in in 1998 and submitted that this enabled her to live there for the period of more than three years that she was engaged in the sale of the inherited property.
15. Mr Ffrench submitted that the respondent had one family member in Australia but that there were still some family associations in Russia. He submitted that the willingness of the respondent to enable her cousin’s daughter to live there without paying rent was an indicator of the closeness of that relationship.
16. In relation to financial ties to Australia, Mr Ffrench submitted that these were minimal prior to her last arrival in Australia and comprised the shares that had been purchased with the proceeds of the sale of furniture in Russia. He referred to the bank account which was opened in 1998 and to it being closed because of a lack of funds. In relation to employment, he submitted that, whilst there were no ties to Australia, the respondent had a long history of employment in Russia and was able to re-engage in that work during her stay in Russia.
17. In respect of assets, Mr Ffrench again referred to the Australian shares but submitted that the majority of the respondent’s assets were in Russia in the form of her unit and that, during the period that she was living there, it also included the furniture that she had retained and kept there after returning to Australia in 1998.
18. Mr Ffrench submitted that an important matter in this case was the length of time that the respondent stayed in Russia, especially when that was compared with the period of residency that she had accrued prior to her departure in 1999. She was absent from Australia for three years and four months which followed a permanent residence period of only eight months.
19. Mr Ffrench also referred to other motivations which operated to take the respondent back to Russia. He submitted that these included the cramped conditions that she and Mrs Ingram were in and the lack of financial support that was being received by her. He referred to Mr Ingram who had provided an Assurance of Support for the respondent when she arrived and to a communication by him to the applicant that he was not able to continue with this after January 1999.
20. Mr Ffrench submitted that, in the period 1998-1999 when the respondent was in Australia, she was still in the process of establishing Australian residence and had always been aware that she would be returning to Russia to resolve the property matter. Also, he submitted that her absence for the period from March 1999 to July 2002 was not temporary but, rather, indefinite in nature and that the period of absence could not be taken as a period of residence in the accumulation of 104 weeks. He submitted that the issue was not whether the respondent was able to demonstrate the required period as at the date of the hearing, but as at the date of her claim. He referred to the cases which were relied on by Ms Heyworth-Smith, that is Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Mosca [1998] AATA 586 and Re Issa and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALN 177 and distinguished these on the basis that, in each of those cases, the claimant had a well established residency status prior to the period of absence from Australia.
Respondent’s Case
21. Ms Heyworth-Smith submitted that sub-paragraph 408BA(2)(d)(ia) of the Act was the provision relevant to the determination of this matter and that the period of absence from Australia after 23 March 1999 could be taken into account in calculating the period of 104 weeks. She referred to the factors in sub-section 7(3) of the Act and submitted that these demonstrated that the respondent had been an Australian resident during the period of her absence from Australia from March 1999 until her return in July 2002.
22. In relation to nature of the accommodation used by the respondent in Australia, Ms Heyworth-Smith submitted that she had been a permitted occupant in 1998 and was now a party to a lease of premises along with her daughter. Further, she submitted that, because she had come to Australia under an Assurance of Support, it was most unlikely that she would have been in a position to own property or other assets here. Despite that, she did have some financial ties with Australia in that she had purchased shares and opened a bank account. She conceded that there was a unit in Russia but also submitted that this had been committed to the daughter of her cousin who would eventually purchase it from her. As to her retaining it with some furniture therein during her period in Australia in 1998/1999, Ms Heyworth-Smith submitted that this was consistent with respondent’s evidence that she had been aware that she would need to return to Russia to complete the business concerning the sale of her inherited property. In relation to the receipt of a Russian pension, Ms Heyworth-Smith submitted that this was common in Russia and that the monies were being used to service the costs associated with her unit. Further, she submitted that the proceeds of sale and any pension entitlements can be transferred to the respondent when the unit is finally sold.
23. As to the nature and extent of the family relationships the respondent has in Australia, she referred to the absence of an extended family in this case and to the closeness of the association with her daughter. She submitted that this outweighed the relevance of a cousin and a step-brother in Russia.
24. In respect of the nature and extent of the respondent’s employment, business or financial ties with Australia, Ms Heyworth-Smith submitted that these were not of great significance in this case because, if she had ties of this kind, she would not be claiming for the widow allowance in any event. Also, she submitted that employment was not an issue because the respondent is now aged 65 years.
25. Ms Heyworth-Smith referred to the respondent’s travel outside Australia as comprising only two visits although one of these was for over three years. However, she submitted that the purpose of those visits and the reason for staying in Russia was the significant aspect in this case and she referred to Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Mosca [1998] AATA 58 in support of that proposition. She also submitted that the respondent had travelled to Russia for a specific reason which was related to her mother’s estate and that her intention was to return when that purpose had been achieved and she submitted that this meant that the absence was a temporary one. In that regard, Ms Heyworth-Smith referred to Re Issa and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALN 177. She submitted that the respondent had, in fact, complied with her intention because she had returned to Australia even though she had stayed for a longer period than she had anticipated because of the difficulties that she encountered.
26. In relation to other relevant matters, Ms Heyworth-Smith referred to the English classes that the respondent took in Australia as being a factor that weighed in favour of her residency status and her intention to make Australia her home. In particular, this was because of the frequency and duration of the classes in Australia and because of her willingness to continue with those classes while she was in Russia. She also submitted that, whilst permanent residency was only granted in July 1998, the respondent’s intention to live in Australia was supported by the earlier periods of time here.
Consideration
27. In this matter, I found the respondent to be a credible and co-operative witness and I accept her evidence as being truthful.
28. It is not disputed in this case and I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the respondent was born on 5 November 1937; that she was divorced in Russia on 20 January 1995 (see T7-58); that she was in Australia in the periods from 28 March 1995 to 16 June 1995, from 19 November 1996 until 1 September 1997, from 23 July 1998 until 23 March 1999 and from 18 July 2002 until the present time (see T7-59 to 61); that the first and second of those periods in Australia were pursuant to a visitor’s visa (see T7-59, 60); that she arrived on 23 July 1998 pursuant to an Australian visa class AO resident sub class 806 (see T7-59) and on an Assurance of Support from the husband of her daughter, Mrs Galina Ingram; that, after her divorce, she has not been a member of a couple; and that, in the periods when she was not in Australia, she had returned to Russia.
29. This means that the respondent meets the criteria in paragraphs 408BA(2)(a) and (b) of the Act in that, at the time of her claim on 20 July 2002, she had turned 50 years of age, had been a member of a couple and, since turning 40 years of age, had divorced from her husband. She also meets the criterion in sub-paragraph 408BA(2)(e)(ii) of the Act in that she has not been a member of a couple in the period referred to below.
30. Paragraph 408BA(2)(c) of the Act requires that the respondent had no recent workforce experience on the day when she made her claim for the allowance and sub-section 408BA(3) of the Act provides that recent workforce experience is employment of 20 hours or more a week for a total of 13 weeks or more at any time during the 12 months immediately before the day a claim is lodged. It was conceded by Mr Ffrench that this provision was met by the respondent and I am satisfied that this concession was properly made on the basis of the respondent’s evidence that, while she worked when she was in Russia, she did not do so for periods that reached the threshold level in that provision.
31. Paragraph 408BA(2)(c) of the Act gives three alternative criteria which apply according to the time of a claimant’s entry into Australia. In this case, the relevant component is sub-paragraph (ia) which requires the respondent to have been an Australian resident for a period of, or periods totalling, 104 weeks before the day she lodged the claim for the allowance. Further, sub-paragraph 408BA(2)(e)(ii) of the Act requires that the respondent have been an Australian resident throughout the period of the 104 week period. In accordance with sub-section 7(2) of the Act, the respondent will meet that requirement if, for that period, she resided in Australia and was the holder of a permanent visa. I am satisfied that the respondent was the holder of a permanent visa from 23 July 1999 and, therefore, the remaining issue for determination is whether the respondent resided in Australia for the period of 104 weeks prior to 20 July 2002.
32. The respondent was residing in Australia with a permanent visa in the period from 23 July 1998 until she returned to Russia on 23 March 1999 and for the two days prior to lodging her claim for the allowance. This comprises approximately 35 weeks and, clearly, is much shorter than the required 104 weeks. However, the Act envisages that a person may be considered to be residing in Australia even though absent from it. In that regard, I note the difference in the wording of sub-paragraph 408BA(2)(c)(ib) of the Act, which is not applicable in this case, and which requires a claimant to have been in Australia for the period of 104 weeks. Sub-section 7(3) of the Act provides that, in deciding whether or not a person is residing in Australia, regard must be had to the following factors:
“(a) the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia;
(b) the nature and extent of the family relationships the person has in Australia;
(c) the nature and extent of the person's employment, business or financial ties with Australia;
(d) the nature and extent of the person's assets located in Australia;
(e) the frequency and duration of the person's travel outside Australia; and
(f) any other matter relevant to determining whether the person intends to remain permanently in Australia.”
33. That provision, which has as its main focus the person’s connections with Australia, does not comprise an exhaustive list of factors and also of importance will be those kinds of connections which the person has with another country, in this case Russia: see ReClifopoulos and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 36 ALD 745 at 747. Paragraph 7(2)(f) of the Act also makes it clear that the intention of the respondent will be relevant in determining her status during the period of absence from Australia: see Hafza v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 6 FCR 444 at 449-450.
34. In relation to the nature of the accommodation used by the person in Australia, the respondent lived with her daughter, Mrs Ingram. Until December 1998, this was also with Mr Ingram. That is not surprising as she came to Australia on an Assurance of Support from Mr Ingram. After Mr and Mrs Ingram separated, she lived with Mrs Ingram in rather cramped conditions. In that period, the respondent was not party to a lease but was a permitted occupant. At all material times, the respondent owned a unit in Russia which she retained in a partly furnished state when she came to Australia after her return to Russia in 1997 and 1998. Her evidence was that, when she returned to Australia in July 1998, she realised that she still had business relating to her mother’s estate to attend to in Russia and must have contemplated returning to Russia and utilising her unit while that business was attended to. Indeed, that is what she did in 1999. She retains ownership of this unit but, in effect, has surrendered it to the daughter of her cousin who is living there and who will eventually purchase it. In addition to that unit, the respondent also had the interest in the unit which she inherited from her mother. However, she has now sold this property interest.
35. The respondent’s relationships in Russia consist of a cousin and a step-brother along with their respective families. Even though the respondent extended the period of time available to her step-brother to exercise the option to purchase the room that she inherited, the evidence does not point to there being a close relationship between the two. Similarly, the respondent has enabled her cousin’s daughter to use her unit but this will eventually result in a transfer of ownership for consideration and, again, the evidence does not point to there being a close relationship between the respondent and her cousin. The evidence is that the closest and strongest family ties that the respondent has are with her daughter in Australia.
36. The respondent has no employment or business history in Australia and has limited financial ties with or assets located in Australia. Again, this is not surprising. She was over 60 years of age when she came to Australia in 1998 and for a person not to be employed at that age is not unusual especially when regard is had to her limited capacity to converse in English. Also, as Ms Heyworth-Smith contended, she had come to Australia under an Assurance of Support which indicates that she was most unlikely to be in a position to own property or other assets here. Even so, she did develop some financial ties with Australia through the purchase of shares and the opening of a bank account.. The respondent does have financial ties with Russia in the form of a pension that she receives. However, this would seem to be a modest amount.
37. A significant factor in this case is the length of the absence from Australia. Paragraph 7(3)(e) refers to frequency and duration of travel outside Australia. The respondent left Australia on only one occasion after she obtained a permanent visa but she stayed away for three years and four months. Obviously, the respondent “travelled” in order to get to Russia but it is difficult to describe her absence as one related to “travel” as the term is used in the provision. Nevertheless, the authorities cited by Ms Heyworth-Smith support the view that such periods of absence will not necessarily preclude a claimant from being treated as residing in Australia during that time. In Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Mosca [1998] AATA 586, the claimant was held to be resident in Australia during an absence overseas from June 1989 until June 1992 and, in Re Issa and Secretary, Department of Social Security (1985) 8 ALN 177, the same conclusion was reached in relation to an absence of some eight years. In each of those cases, the reason for the length of the period away from Australia was important. In Mosca, the claimant was looking after her terminally ill sister; in Issa, the delay arose because one of the parties had been gravely ill.
38. Mr Ffrench sought to distinguish those two cases on the basis that each of the claimants in them had a clearly established residential status in Australia prior to the period of absence. In this case, the absence of over three years came after a period in Australia as a resident for only eight months. In itself, I do not consider that to be a persuasive factor. The terms of section 7 of the Act do not reflect that distinction. However, in assessing a person’s intentions, it may be less difficult to show an intention to return to Australia where there has been a previous lengthy period of residence in the country.
39. I have noted the submissions of Mr Ffrench concerning the various motivations of the respondent for leaving Australia such as financial difficulties and cramped living conditions. However, I am satisfied that the overwhelming purpose behind the respondent’s return to Russia in March 1999 was to finalise the matters relating to her inheritance. I am also satisfied that this was the reason for her travelling to Russia in September 1997. I accept her evidence that she was delayed in her endeavours to dispose of her property and I also accept her evidence in relation to the reasons for this. She faced difficulties with obtaining documentation, with the need to give her step-brother time to exercise a purchasing option and with her attempt to sell the property on her own behalf. She also gave an extension of the option period to her step-brother but I am satisfied that the difficulties she faced, which were responsible for the length of time that she was absent from Australia, were matters over which she did not have control. She returned to Australia soon after she settled the sale of the property and had achieved the purpose of travelling to Russia.
40. I also accept the respondent’s evidence that she undertook the study of English language both in Australia and when she returned to Russia and that this supports the finding, which I now make, that it has been the intention of the respondent at all relevant times to make Australia her home and to reside in Australia with her daughter.
41. Having considered the factors in sub-section 7(3) of the Act, I find that the respondent, though absent from Australia from 23 March 1999 until 18 July 2002, continued to be resident in Australia during that period. This means that the respondent met the qualification criteria in section 408BA of the Act for the widow allowance as at 20 July 2002, the date of her claim.
Decision
42. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 42 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr R G Kenny, Member
Signed: Sarah Oliver
Associate
Date of Hearing 19 May 2003
Date of Decision 30 May 2003
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr T Ffrench, Departmental Advocate
Counsel for the Respondent Ms Heyworth-Smith
Solicitor for the Respondent Welfare Rights Centre
1
2
0