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

This matter concerned an appeal by RBWJ against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding social security benefits. The core of the dispute revolved around the AAT's decision to require RBWJ to appear at their hearing via telephone, rather than in person. The appeal was heard by Dr L Bygrave, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the AAT had erred in law by compelling RBWJ to participate in the hearing by telephone. This involved considering the Tribunal's obligations under the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) and the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in relation to the conduct of hearings and the rights of parties to present their case. The Tribunal was required to determine if the decision to mandate a telephone hearing prejudiced RBWJ's ability to adequately present their case or if it was otherwise an improper exercise of the Tribunal's discretion.

Dr Bygrave reasoned that the Tribunal has a broad discretion to manage its proceedings, including determining the mode of hearing. However, this discretion must be exercised judicially and with due regard to the principles of procedural fairness. The Tribunal found that while telephone hearings can be appropriate in certain circumstances, mandating such a hearing without sufficient consideration of the applicant's circumstances or their ability to effectively participate could amount to an error of law. In this instance, the Tribunal concluded that RBWJ had not been afforded a proper opportunity to present their case, and the decision to require a telephone appearance had prejudiced their ability to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the AAT for a fresh hearing.