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

This matter concerned an application for review before the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant sought to challenge a debt raised by Centrelink, which had been calculated based on the value of assets held by the applicant and his partner during a period when the applicant was in receipt of Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core of the dispute revolved around the valuation method used for a property, which the applicant contended was unacceptable and sought to re-litigate despite previous determinations by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant should be permitted to re-litigate the issue of property valuation, which had already been determined by the AAT in a previous decision dated 13 February 2012. The Tribunal was required to consider whether any new or compelling evidence had been presented that would justify revisiting the prior finding regarding the property's valuation, and whether it had the discretion to limit the issues for determination in the current review.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it possessed a general discretion to allow further consideration of issues, this discretion was not to be exercised lightly, particularly where the same facts and issues had already been decided. Drawing on principles established in cases such as *Matusko and Australian Postal Corporation* and *Cheung v Administrative Appeals Tribunal*, the Tribunal noted that re-litigation of decided issues is generally not permitted without a compelling reason. The applicant's assertion of new evidence regarding the property's value was found not to be sufficiently new or compelling to warrant overturning the previous Tribunal's comprehensive valuation, which had preferred the Australian Valuation Office's longitudinal study and the valuer's experience. The Tribunal applied section 25(4A) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*, which permits the Tribunal to limit the scope of its review.

Consequently, the Tribunal made an order limiting the issues for determination in the application. The Tribunal found that it had exhausted its power to review the valuation issue, as no new and compelling evidence had been presented to justify departing from its previous findings. The application was remitted to the respondent for further action based on this limited scope of review.