Newman and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 99
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/0344

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re RODNEY NEWMAN

Applicant

And

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr P Wulf, Member
Date15 February 2011
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review not to refund the whole debt.

.................[Sgd].............................
Member

CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – Pensions, Benefits and Entitlements – overpayment of family tax benefit in previous years – debts previously paid to the Commonwealth – whether entitled to reimbursement under special circumstances as a result of variation of original decision based on Tribunal findings - no special circumstances
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 37, 43
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) ss 21, 22, 25, 59, 71, 95, 97, 101
Beadle v Director-General of Social Security (1985) 60 ALR 225
Director-General of Social Services v Hales (1998) 82 FCR 154; (1998) 153 ALR 259
Fuller and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Ashenden (Other Party) [2010] AATA 822
Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1995) 40 ALD 541
Re Cymerman v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 78 ALD 584
Ryde v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (unreported 28 June 2005)
Sekhon v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 76 ALD 105
REASONS FOR DECISION

15 February 2011 Mr P Wulf, Member

1.      Mr Rodney Newman (“the applicant”) received payments under ANew Tax System (Family Assistance) Administration Act 1999 (“the Act”) in the form of family tax benefit (“FTB”) for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 (“first period”) and for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 (“second period”). These benefits were paid in a financial year on the basis of the recipient’s estimates of the time he had care of his three children, R, L and M.
BACKGROUND
2.      The Tribunal does not believe it is necessary to restate the facts that can be found in the earlier decision;[1] however it is necessary to restate the relevant facts as to monies paid and repaid by the applicant.
[1] Newman and Anor and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2010] AATA 849 (1 November 2010)
3.      On 24 June 2009, the applicant lodged a claim for an annual lump sum payment for FTB for the second period.[2] On 29 June 2009, the applicant lodged a claim for an annual lump sum payment for FTB for the first period.[3]
[2] Exhibit 1, T5/62-69.
[3] Exhibit 1, T7/71-83.
4.      On 20 July 2009, Centrelink paid the applicant a lump sum payment of $2,070.89 for care of the children during the second period and on 22 July 2009, Centrelink paid the applicant a lump sum payment of $434.35 for care of the children during the first period.
5.      On 5 August 2009, the decision to pay the applicant…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Newman, an individual, brought a case against the Secretary of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, contesting a decision that refused to refund him for overpayments of family tax benefit from previous years. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The crux of the dispute was whether Newman was entitled to a reimbursement under special circumstances after having paid debts to the Commonwealth, following a variation of the original decision based on findings made by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was to determine if the circumstances under which the original decision was varied warranted a special reimbursement to Newman. This involved examining the nature of the variation and whether it constituted a special circumstance that would entitle Newman to reimbursement. The AAT had to consider the legal framework governing social security overpayments and the principles of fairness and equity in administrative law.

The Tribunal found that the variation of the original decision did not constitute special circumstances that would entitle Newman to a reimbursement. The Tribunal held that the overpayment of family tax benefit was not due to an error by the Department but rather a result of Newman's own misrepresentation of his circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to refund the whole debt, adhering to the established principles of social security law and administrative fairness.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established