Mathews and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services - [2002] AATA 928

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 928

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2001/1539
) No N2001/1707

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      GEOFFREY ROY MATHEWS
  Applicant
           And    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member

Date15 October 2002
PlaceSydney

Decision      The decision under review is set aside and in substitution the tribunal decides that the whole of the compensation amount paid to the applicant on 27 July 1999 is to be regarded as not having been paid.
   [SGD] M J SASSELLA
  Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Newstart Allowance – Disability Support Pension – receipt of compensation lump sum – preclusion period imposed – compensation debt – whether compensation debt should be waived – whether compensation should be regarded as not paid

Social Security Act 1991 ss 1178, 1179, 1184K, 1223(1AB)(d), 1237A(1), 1237AAD

Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1
Beadle v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 7 ALD 670

REASONS FOR DECISION

15 October 2002 Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member

THE APPLICATION

This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the tribunal") by Geoffrey Roy Mathews ("the applicant"), born 2 July 1957 (T10), for review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") dated 30 August 2001 (T2) to set aside a decision of delegate of the Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services dated 3 August 2001 (T34). The delegate, a Centrelink authorised review officer ("ARO"), had decided to impose a preclusion period running from 27 July 1999 to 3 February 2003 such that Mr Mathews could be paid no pension during that period. The applicant had also to repay a debt of $9,814.50. The SSAT decided to reduce the preclusion period by 12 months. The purpose of the application was to have the preclusion period removed and for there to be no repayable debt.
THE HEARING
The tribunal convened a hearing in this matter in Wollongong on 4 July 2002. Ms M Pikett of the NSW Legal Aid Commission in Wollongong represented Mr Mathews. Mr B Slattery of the Centrelink Advocacy and Administrative Law Team represented the respondent. The tribunal heard oral evidence from Geoffrey Mathews, Mrs Sharon Mathews, Mr Peter Warner and Mr Denis McGrath. The tribunal took into evidence the following documents:
Exhibit TD1 – Section 37 Statement and associated documents (exhibits T1 – T36) provided by the respondent.
Exhibit A1 – Applicant's statement of facts and contentions, 20 June 2002-10-09.
Exhibit A2 – Report by Dr A Daley, paediatric registrar, 12 September 1995.
Exhibit A3 – Report by Ms N Wilson, school counsellor, Mount Warrigal Primary School, 16 October 1995.
Exhibit A4 – Report by Ms J Bartlett, district guidance officer, Warilla High School, 15 March 1999.
Exhibit A5 – Letter dated 15 June 1999 from Centrelink to MMI Insurance.
Exhibit A6 – Application to Children's Court of NSW, 7 February 2002.
Exhibit A7 – Affidavit of Helen Walker, 7 February 2002.
Exhibit A8 – Statement by Mrs S Mathews, 7 February 2002.
Exhibit A9 – Statements by Mr G and Mrs S Mathews, 7 February 2002.
Exhibit A10 – Individual student plan for Naomi Mathews, March 2002.
Exhibit A11 – Report by Dr S Dragutinovich, psychologist, 3 May 2002.
Exhibit A12 – Summary of applicant's financial circumstances, 2 July 2002.
Exhibit A13 – Statement by applicant, 21 January 2002.
Exhibit A14 – Letter dated 5 June 1997 from Firths, the Compensation Lawyers, to the applicant.
Exhibit A15 – Letter dated 19 July 1999 from Firths to the applicant.
Exhibit A16 – Applicant's submission to the tribunal, 3 July 2002.
Exhibit R1 – Respondent's statement of facts and contentions, 7 January 2001.
Exhibit R2 – Witness statement by Denis McGrath, 4 July 2002.
Exhibit R3 – Witness statement by Peter Warner, 3 July 2002.
Exhibit R4 – Centrelink computerised file notes.
Exhibit R5 – Centrelink screen dumps.
Exhibit R6 – Applicant's payment records.

FINDINGS ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THOSE FINDINGS

In 1995 the applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He claimed compensation and received weekly payments of workers' compensation.
Between 1982 and 1986 Mr Mathews accrued a debt of some $35,021.78 as a result of not declaring earnings while in receipt of a Newstart Allowance. He had repaid all but $15,510 of that debt (T4).
On 27 April 1999 Mr Mathews contacted Centrelink to inquire about compensation preclusion periods (T3). He was given very general information and was referred to his lawyer.
On 15 June 1999 an officer in the Centrelink Debt Management Unit placed a garnishee of $15,510 on Mr Mathews' compensation (T4). This was achieved by service of a notice on MMI Insurance. (However, on 1 September 1999 MMI said that it had never received the garnishee request (T7)). Mr Mathews was contacted and told the Centrelink officer who called him that the compensation matter was to be settled at court on 15 July 1999 (T4). Mr Mathews was claiming $120,000.
At some time Mr Mathews had been offered a discount on the $15,000 debt if he paid it in full. This offer was withdrawn when the garnishee was notified. On 17 June 1999 Mr Mathews telephoned Centrelink unhappy that the discount was not applied (T5). Centrelink told Mr Mathews that the discount could not proceed because he was expected to receive $120,000 and had a capacity to repay in full. Mr Mathews said that he would never again divulge any information to "DSS" and next time Centrelink would just have to catch him. On 1 September 1999 Mr Mathews had another attempt at having the debt reduced to $14,000.
On 27 July 1999 the applicant redeemed his ongoing compensation for a lump sum of $154,554.75 (T13/65). The $15,510 was repaid on 9 September 1999 (ex R1, paragraph 8).
On 21 March 2000 Mr Mathews lodged a claim for disability payment (T10). There were some difficulties with Mr Mathews' completion of the form.

He was asked (question 21) whether he had received in the previous 12 months a lump sum payment that was not declared elsewhere on the form. He did not check either "yes" or "no" box.
He was asked (question 31) whether he had had an illness or injury for which he had, or could, claim compensation or damages. He did not answer "yes" or "no".
He was asked (question 32) whether he had made a claim for compensation or damages. He answered "yes". In question 33 he indicated that the claim was for workers' compensation and was for a lump sum. However, he did not specify a date of claim.
He answered question 34 by stating that the claim had been settled.
He answered question 36 by stating that he had not received, and was not currently receiving, any compensation payments from that claim.
He answered question 40 by saying that he had not in the last five years given away any cash, assets, property or income.
Mr Mathews did not sign or date the form.

Mr Mathews answered questions about what he was doing before he needed to make the claim. He said he was employed full time and was not unemployed. An employment separation certificate (T11) stated that he had worked for Fundraiser Promotions Pty Ltd from 3 August 1998 to 10 March 2000. He ceased work because of the recurrence of an old back injury
On 30 March 2000 Mr Mathews was granted Newstart Allowance (Incapacitated) ("NSA") and on 14 August 200 was granted Disability Support Pension ("DSP") (ex R1).
On 12 December 2000 Centrelink ascertained through data-matching with the Health Insurance Commission that Mr Mathews had been paid $120,000 by way of compensation on 15 July 1999 (T13). Centrelink considered that it had received no earlier information about this payment (ex R1).
On 24 January 2001 Centrelink sent Mr Mathews a letter stating that it may not have assessed the compensation settlement (T14). The letter asked Mr Mathews to contact Centrelink. On 29 January 2001 Mr Mathews phoned and said that he had advised Centrelink of his compensation (T13/63).
Centrelink dealt then with Allianz Insurance to ascertain compensation details (T15). On 31 May 2001 Allianz informed Centrelink that the gross settlement amount was $120,000 (T21). On 20 June 2001 a Centrelink officer informed Mr Mathews by telephone that he would be subjected to a preclusion period and he may owe money to Centrelink (T13/65). Mr Mathews was promised a letter explaining the matter. The letter was sent on 22 June 2001 (T23) informing Mr Mathews that his DSP had been cancelled and that he would not be paid again until 3 February 2003. On the same day he was sent a letter of demand (T24) seeking repayment of $9,814.50.
On 2 July 2001 Mr Mathews wrote to Centrelink (T26). The salient parts of that letter were that, prior to making the claim in T10, Mr Mathews spoke to "Denis", a Centrelink officer. He told Denis he had received a compensation payment. Denis replied that Mr Mathews was entitled to NSA regardless of the compensation. Mr Mathews said that he was not told of any other area within Centrelink that he should inform about the compensation. He said he told Denis all details of the payment as he did not "want to get into any trouble with" Social Security about his workers' compensation. Denis said "it was fine" and that payments would be backdated to 13 March 2000. Mr Mathews had later dealings with a Peter Warner, a Centrelink officer, who arranged for Mr Mathews to receive DSP as a more appropriate payment. Mr Mathews said that he and Mrs Mathews had completed Parenting Payment forms and declared the compensation, but no follow-up had occurred. Mr Mathews considered that he had been given wrong information. He said that he had $10,000 in his investment account but that he had no job, no other income and that he had spent the workers' compensation money on his six children. He did not own his house and was renting. He asked that his payment be restored on grounds of hardship.
Mr Mathews provided an account of the expenditure of the compensation money (T26/85). From $120,000 he:

Paid DSS $15,810.
Paid $13,782 for a car.
Paid $20,000 for furniture for his house.
Paid $7,000 for erection of a pergola.
Paid $25,000 for a new car.
Paid miscellaneous amounts to set up his children in independent accommodation as each moved out of the house. He bought them white goods, television sets, microwave ovens and clothing, and paid for motor registration and insurance. He was down to $5,000.

On 24 July 2001 a Centrelink officer wrote to Mr Mathews stating that the decision to apply the preclusion period and recover the money would stand (T31). This was because Mr Mathews had not advised how much he received in his compensation settlement as required in question 36. It was stated that, had he advised how much he had received, Centrelink could have advised him how his settlement money affected his Centrelink payments.
On 3 August 2001 an ARO decided not to change the decision (T34). It was considered that the error that resulted in Mr Mathews being paid during a preclusion period was brought about because Mr Mathews failed to disclose to Centrelink full information about his lump sum compensation. The overpayment did not come about because of administrative error.
The tribunal finds that Mr Mathews owes a recoverable amount in accordance with ss 1178 and 1179 of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act"):
Repayment of amount where both lump sum and payments of compensation affected payment have been received
1178.(1) If:
(a)       a person receives a lump sum compensation payment; and
(b)       the person receives payments of a compensation affected payment in relation to a day or days in the lump sum preclusion period;
the Secretary may, by written notice to the person, determine that the person is liable to pay to the Commonwealth the amount specified in the notice.
1178.(2) The amount to be specified in the notice is the recoverable amount under section 1179.
The section 1178 recoverable amount
1179. The recoverable amount under this section is equal to the smaller of the following amounts:
(a)     the compensation part of the lump sum compensation payment;
(b)       the sum of the payments of the compensation affected payment made to the person in relation to a day or days in the lump sum preclusion period.
Section 1223(1AB)(d) of the Act also creates a debt due to the Commonwealth where an amount was paid to a recipient by way of a social security payment and that amount was paid because the recipient made a false statement or representation, or failed or omitted to comply with a provision of the Act.
The respondent submitted that the incorrect answer to question 36 on the claim form, together with the non-answers to questions 21 and 31 (see paragraph 9 above), indicated that Mr Mathews was careful answer them as he did and to be economical with the truth. Considered along with Mr Mathews' earlier threat not to disclose information to Centrelink (above at paragraph 7), this was said to show that Mr Mathews was disinclined to discover the details of any preclusion period that might affect him.
Mr Mathews gave oral evidence. He and his wife still have four of their six children living with them. They have a grandchild with them for three days a week.
Mr Mathews recalled saying that he would not divulge information to Centrelink in future. He said that he did not mean it. It was a rash remark. It was pointed out that Mr Mathews had phoned Centrelink about his debt on 27 July 1999 and that he had declared certain information when completing his claim form on 21 March 2000.
Mr Mathews discussed the process of completion of the T10 claim form. He had had an appointment to see Denis to organise his claim. He recalled stressing to Denis that he wanted everything done properly because he did not want to incur another Centrelink debt. Denis was typing on a computer keyboard and seemed to be recording Mr Mathews' answers.
As regards question 31, which was not answered at all and which asked whether Mr Mathews had ever had an injury or illness for which he could claim compensation, Mr Mathews said that he told Denis he had already answered that question on a medical form for the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Denis said that he would find it there. Questions 32 and 33 were answered and were correct. He had made a claim for workers' compensation and said so in the answers. He omitted to provide a date of claim, however, again because it was in the medical documents. Question 34 was answered correctly. The claim had been settled. Question 35 was not answered. This question asked who Mr Mathews was claiming from. As his claim had been settled the question was not actually applicable.
In question 36 Mr Mathews said that he had not received and was not receiving any compensation payments from this claim. Mr Mathews said he misread the question. He read it as not applying to past payments whereas it did apply to such payments and to current payments. Mr Mathews denied that this was an attempt to hide his compensation payment. It was an innocent mistake. He said that Centrelink already knew of the compensation payment and had garnisheed it.
Mr Mathews had answered in the affirmative to question 38, suggesting he had an income protection insurance policy. This was confused in that Mr Mathews had insurance for consumer credit, but nothing hinges on that.
He had answered question 40 wrongly in that he answered in the negative to the effect that he had not given away any cash, assets, property or income. He had made gifts to his children but he had not seen these as caught by the question. This was another innocent mistake.
Mr Mathews had failed to respond to question 21 in which he was asked if he had received a lump sum payment in the past 12 months not declared elsewhere in the form. Mr Mathews could not recall why he had failed to answer this. He could not recall discussing it with Denis. He thought he read it as not applying to compensation-based lump sums.
Mr Mathews described the home situation. A daughter, Michelle, aged 23, was living away from home. She was a flood victim in 1998 for whom Mr Mathews had provided furniture, etc. She was uninsured. She has a daughter aged 5. Michelle had a partner but does not any longer. She was not in contact with Mr and Mrs Mathews at the time of the hearing. She now lives in Campbelltown.
A second daughter, Narelle, aged 20, has had domestic strife. She has a daughter, Corinna aged 3, and a son, Zachary aged 6 months at the time of the hearing. Corrina is with Mr Orange, her father, three days a week and with Mr and Mrs Mathews four days a week. Zachary is with Narelle because she is breast-feeding him. Zachary and Narelle live with Mr and Mrs Mathews four days a week. Narelle's partner, Mr C McKenzie, has apparently ill-treated Corrina and still "hangs around" Narelle, although they do not cohabit.
The third daughter, Naomi, aged 18, is in year 12 at high school. She is very difficult. She is temperamental, withdrawn and semi-autistic. She engenders tension with her siblings. She also has obsessive compulsive disorder.
Daughter Kayla, aged 15, has not caused any problems at this time. David, aged 11, is in a special class at school. He is two years behind his age cohort in his schooling. He has behavioural problems.
Craig, aged 8, has a kidney malfunction and is slated for an operation when he reaches age 13. He has medications and a specially prescribed drink. He has had surgery on three occasions, the first time when he was 6 months old.
Dr Dragutinovich, the psychologist, wrote a report after seeing Mr Mathews on 3 May 2002 (ex A11). He had treated Mr Mathews for chronic pain disorder in 1996. He diagnosed Mr Mathews in 2002 as having depression in the severe category. Mr Mathews told the tribunal that he had been suicidal on and off for five years but that this had stopped when he recommenced work in February 2002.
Reference was made to a current statement of income and expenditure (ex A12). This showed an excess of expenditure over income of $14.00 a week. Mr Mathews had assets worth some $45,000.
In cross-examination it emerged that Mr Mathews' earlier debt of $35,000 came about because he had been fishing commercially while receiving Unemployment Benefit and without declaring the income to DSS. This had occurred between 1982 and 1986. Mr Mathews was unable to recall how he had failed to declare those earnings.
Mrs Mathews gave evidence. She corroborated much of Mr Mathews' evidence. She confirmed Mr Mathews' desire that the claim form be completed properly to avoid further problems. She recalled Mr Mathews telling the Centrelink officer that he was getting a lump sum. She recalled Mr Mathews telling Peter Warner of the lump sum. She was vague, however, as regards what exactly was said. She confirmed the evidence about the various family problems resulting from the children's problems. She explained that she and Mr Mathews felt that they had a continuing responsibility for their children even after they have left home. The expenditure of compensation money on the children was regarded as natural. In Mrs Mathews' view neither Michelle nor Narelle could cope without parental support.
Mrs Mathews said that the family still gives Narelle financial support which is not repaid by Narelle. The children of the family sometimes go without because of lack of money. The children can miss out on social outings with their friends. The family finances were better when Mr Mathews was in full time work.
Mr Denis John McGrath of Centrelink gave evidence. Mr McGrath considered aspects of the claim form (T10) and said that the claim should not have been granted. This was because Mr Mathews had not signed the form. Mr McGrath could not recall Mr Mathews telling him of the compensation lump sum. He would normally issue a "Module C" if compensation was mentioned but module C is included as part of the particular claim form used here. He thought he would have checked the compensation answers on the form if he had been alerted that compensation was an issue. Mr McMahon had failed to notice that question 31 was not answered. He said that he would not have left it unanswered if Mr Mathews had expressed concerns regarding compensation. Mr McMahon had no recall of Mr Mathews stressing that he wanted no mistakes made but Mr McMahon thought it "not impossible". He said he would have concentrated on the correct completion of the form had such remarks been made. Mr McMahon conceded that he may have been somewhat inattentive in this interview. He noted that the employment separation certificate (T11) made the claim appear straightforward. Mr McMahon thought he saw Mr Mathews for 30 minutes. The normal time period for a grant interview would be 45-60 minutes. He said that it was usual for claim forms to be completed by claimants at home. It was also unusual for Centrelink to check each answer with the claimant.

Mr McMahon thought the keyboarding he was doing during the interview was calling up the question prompts. The system prompts an interviewer to check citizenship, up to date address, phone numbers, bank account details, etc. In cross-examination Mr McMahon addressed the faulty responses to questions 32, 33 and 36. He said that he would normally have asked the claimant more when seeing such responses. He would have gone to the compensation screen when the prompts arose. He could not explain why he had not followed up here. Mr McMahon was admirably candid in admitting that he had acted perhaps erroneously in his handling of this documentation. He felt that he must have been distracted to let the form through without a signature. A signature is regarded within Centrelink as a "big deal". Mr McMahon noted that the form should have been re-examined by a Centrelink pension officer when Mr Mathews was considered for DSP.
Mr Peter Warner gave evidence. Exhibit R4 showed that he had organised to obtain medical information on Mr Mathews. He could not recall discussing compensation matters with Mr Mathews or Mr Mathews emphasising the need for accuracy in the determination of his claim.
The tribunal finds that there is a debt due to the Commonwealth in this case and that it has been correctly calculated by the respondent. This was not challenged by Mr Mathews.
In final submissions Ms Pikett, for Mr Mathews, argued that the debt should be waived in accordance with s 1237A(1) or s 1237AAD of the Act and argued that the compensation should be regarded as not having been paid under s 1184K of the Act. The tribunal will address the s 1184K argument first.
Ms Pikett submitted that there are special circumstances in the case such that the tribunal can regard the compensation payment as not having been made. This is an application of s 1184K of the Act:
Secretary may disregard some payments
1184K.(1) For the purposes of this Part, the Secretary may treat the whole or part of a compensation payment as:
(a) not having been made; or
(b) not liable to be made;
if the Secretary thinks it is appropriate to do so in the special circumstances of the case.
This argument, of course, found some support in the SSAT. The SSAT (T2) found as special circumstances:

That there was enough material in the claim form at T10 to prompt Centrelink to inquire further into Mr Mathews' compensation situation. The tribunal considers this fair comment and an argument given some support by the evidence of Mr McGrath.
That it was not unreasonable for Mr Mathews to have dissipated the lump sum as he was fully employed or in receipt of Centrelink benefits when he spent the money and the need for him to conserve it would not have been apparent. He had an expectation of ongoing employment at the time of the settlement and then of income support.

The SSAT noted, however, that, from his discussions with Centrelink in 1999, Mr Mathews was aware of preclusion periods before receiving the settlement money. He nevertheless spent money on non-essential items for his children. The SSAT balanced these considerations and resolved to treat as not received sufficient of the compensation as would reduce the preclusion period by 12 months.
Ms Pikett argued that the following were special circumstances:

The administrative errors made by Centrelink.
Mr Mathews' family circumstances, notably his children's problems.
Mr Mathews' psychological state and physical illness.
Mr Mathews' financial hardship.
A change in the divisor used to calculate a preclusion period. This occurred with the introduction of the GST.

As is well known the tribunal and the Federal Court have said the following about the requirement for special circumstances. In Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1 Toohey J said at page 3:
"An expression such as 'special circumstances' is by its very nature incapable of precise or exhaustive definition. The qualifying adjective looks to circumstances that are unusual, uncommon or exceptional. Whether circumstances answer any of these descriptions must depend on the context in which they occur. For it is the context which allows one to say that the circumstances in one case are markedly different from the usual run of cases. This is not to say that the circumstances must be unique but they must have a particular quality of unusualness that permits them to be described as special."
This passage was largely endorsed by the full Federal Court in Beadle v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 7 ALD 670, 675.
Of the circumstances suggested as special, the tribunal immediately rejects several:

The change in divisor reflected an intention of Parliament and applies to every social security recipient whose affairs have required assessment of a preclusion period since July 2000. It would frustrate government policy, as reflected in legislation, to circumvent this statutory provision. Additionally, there is nothing about the application of the divisor to Mr Mathews to take the situation out of the ordinary course.
Mr Mathews' psychological state appears to have improved since he recommenced work in February 2002. He appears also to have found work within his physical capabilities. This means that the effect of these factors on Mr Mathews cannot be so grave as to affect him in a way that is out of the ordinary when compared to the effect of such factors on other social security recipients.
Mr Mathews' financial hardship is real but is not so extreme as to amount to the extremely straitened circumstances required for classification as a special circumstance under s 1184K of the Act.

The tribunal accepted Mr Mathews' evidence that he attempted, unsuccessfully it would seem, to impress on Mr McGrath his desire that no errors occur in the disability payment claims process. The fact that errors were then made may, given the unusual setting established by Mr Mathews, amount to a special circumstance.
However, the tribunal considers that a stronger case for a special circumstance can be made out in relation to Mr Mathews' family situation and attendant obligations. It is unusual in a case such as this for an applicant to be able to claim a combination of problems consisting of:

Six children, none of whom is entirely independent of Mr and Mrs Mathews.
A grandchild in the care of Mr and Mrs Mathews three days a week who has been abused and in respect of whom there have been care proceedings in court (ex A6, A7).
An adult child whose financial and, probably, emotional security was severely eroded by the Illawarra floods in 1998.
Three children living at home, aged 18, 11 and 8 (in July 2002), who each have health or behavioural problems.

This combination of features exposes the family to additional emotional and, more importantly in the current context, financial wear and tear than would apply in a more mainstream social security recipient family. The tribunal has considered the expenditure of the lump sum. While it may have been foolhardy for Mr Mathews to dissipate the award to the extent he did, he was faced by some extreme circumstances. There was a daughter whose personal resources appear limited and who was rendered homeless in the 1998 floods. The settlement moneys in 1999 arrived after a lengthy period of unemployment, although Mr Mathews had found employment in August 1998 (T11) and had received $34,000 compensation in 1997. Between 1995 and 1998 he had had little if any employment. A few of the items on which compensation moneys were spent were probably inessential. However, most were the types of items a family such as Mr Mathews' and his adult daughters' families would require, eg motor vehicle and accommodation expenses. The tribunal considers that the Mathews children's particular vulnerabilities made it reasonable for Mr and Mrs Mathews to assume an
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons the tribunal has decided that it would be appropriate in this case to regard the whole of the compensation amount paid in July 1999 as not having been made in accordance with s 1184K of the Act. This has the effect of removing the preclusion period and eradicating the debt of $9,814.50. It is not, therefore, necessary to address the arguments relating to whether the debt should be waived.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution the tribunal decides that the whole of the compensation amount paid to the applicant on 27 July 1999 is to be regarded as not having been paid.
I certify that the 56 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date of hearing  4 July 2002
Date of decision  15 October 2002
Counsel for the applicant         Ms Megan Pikett
Solicitor for the applicant         NSW Legal Aid Commission
Counsel for the respondent     Mr Bernard Slattery, Centrelink Advocacy and Administrative Law Team