McLeod and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2016] AATA 853
•28 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
McLeod and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 853
[2016] AATA 853
28 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Wendy McLeod against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services that a compensation lump sum preclusion period applied to her claim for Age Pension. Ms McLeod had ceased employment due to a psychological injury and subsequently received periodic compensation payments. Later, she received two lump sum payments for whole person impairment and pain and suffering, and then settled a further claim for work injury damages, receiving a lump sum payment of $135,000. A delegate of the Secretary rejected her Age Pension claim on the basis that this final lump sum payment triggered a preclusion period under the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth).
The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "lump sum payment," "lump sum compensation payment," and "arrears of periodic compensation payments" within the context of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), and specifically whether the $135,000 payment received by Ms McLeod constituted a "lump sum compensation payment" that would preclude her from receiving the Age Pension. The central question was whether this payment, calculated in respect of past economic losses, fell within the exclusion for "arrears of periodic compensation payments" as defined by section 17(4A) of the Act.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the broad policy of the Social Security Act is to account for compensation payments, the specific wording of section 17(4A) provided a narrow exclusion. The $135,000 payment was calculated based on Ms McLeod's lost earnings from a specific past period, net of periodic compensation already paid. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that this payment was properly characterised as "arrears of periodic compensation payments" and, by operation of section 17(4A), was not a "lump sum compensation payment" for the purposes of the Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review. Ms McLeod was found not to be precluded from receiving the Age Pension as of 2 June 2015, and the matter was remitted to the Secretary to determine her Age Pension entitlements.
The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "lump sum payment," "lump sum compensation payment," and "arrears of periodic compensation payments" within the context of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), and specifically whether the $135,000 payment received by Ms McLeod constituted a "lump sum compensation payment" that would preclude her from receiving the Age Pension. The central question was whether this payment, calculated in respect of past economic losses, fell within the exclusion for "arrears of periodic compensation payments" as defined by section 17(4A) of the Act.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the broad policy of the Social Security Act is to account for compensation payments, the specific wording of section 17(4A) provided a narrow exclusion. The $135,000 payment was calculated based on Ms McLeod's lost earnings from a specific past period, net of periodic compensation already paid. Therefore, the Tribunal was satisfied that this payment was properly characterised as "arrears of periodic compensation payments" and, by operation of section 17(4A), was not a "lump sum compensation payment" for the purposes of the Act.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review. Ms McLeod was found not to be precluded from receiving the Age Pension as of 2 June 2015, and the matter was remitted to the Secretary to determine her Age Pension entitlements.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
McLeod and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 853
Most Recent Citation
Sahai and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2021] AATA 3041
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Sahai and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2021] AATA 3041
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
3
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Cunneen
[1997] FCA 1033
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Cunneen
[1997] FCA 1033