Rajcinoski v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

In the case of Rajcinoski v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the appellant, Mr Rajcinoski, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which upheld a decision by the respondent to limit the appellant's portability period for disability support pension to 13 weeks. The appellant argued that he was incorrectly advised by a Centrelink officer that he could return to Australia without affecting his entitlement to disability support pension, and that he should be estopped from denying his entitlement to an unlimited portability period. The appellant also argued that the savings provision in clause 135 of Schedule 1A of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) applied to him and that he should be entitled to an unlimited portability period. The central legal issue before the court was whether the advice given by the Centrelink officer was incorrect, and if so, whether the respondent was estopped from refusing to determine that the appellant's maximum portability period for disability support pension was an unlimited period. The court found that the advice given by the Centrelink officer was not necessarily incorrect, and that even if it was, it did not constitute an error of law. The court also found that the savings provision in clause 135 of Schedule 1A did not apply to the appellant. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.

The court considered the advice given by the Centrelink officer to the appellant on 19 April 2004. The Tribunal had found that the advice was not necessarily incorrect, and that even if it was, it did not constitute an error of law. The court agreed with the Tribunal's findings of fact and held that they were not reviewable by the court. The court also considered whether the savings provision in clause 135 of Schedule 1A applied to the appellant. The court found that the provision did not apply to the appellant as he did not satisfy the criteria in clause 135(1)(b). The court held that the savings provision was not applicable to the appellant's circumstances. The court dismissed the appeal with costs.