Re Vito Pennisi and Director-General of Social Security
Case
•
[1984] AATA 145
•27 October 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Re Vito Pennisi and Director-General of Social Security [2016] AATA 847
[1984] AATA 145
27 October 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Ms. Thea Thomas, against a decision by the Director-General of Social Security to raise a debt for an overpayment of Parenting Payment. The applicant contended that her absence from Australia was due to special circumstances, specifically her mother's serious illness and medical emergency in Bali, which prevented her return. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had exceeded the maximum portability period for receiving Parenting Payment while overseas.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had complied with the portability requirements of the Social Security Act 1991, and if not, whether the period of her absence from Australia exceeded the six-week maximum portability period. A further issue was whether the calculation of this six-week period should account for fractions of a day, as argued by the applicant. The applicant also sought the exercise of discretion under section 1218C of the Act due to the alleged special circumstances.
The Tribunal considered the applicant's movements based on immigration records, which were not disputed. The applicant departed Australia on 14 August 2013 and returned on 25 September 2013. The Tribunal applied the legal principle established in *Prowse v McIntyre* (1961) 111 CLR 264, which dictates that the law takes no account of fractions of a day. Therefore, the calculation of the six-week period was not based on specific times of arrival and departure, but on the full days of absence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's absence, calculated without regard to fractions of a day, exceeded the six-week maximum portability period. The Tribunal also found that the circumstances, while unfortunate, did not meet the threshold for special circumstances to warrant the exercise of discretion under section 1218C.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms. Thea Thomas was subject to a Parenting Payment debt of $19,287.61 for the period 1 November 2013 to 23 November 2014.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had complied with the portability requirements of the Social Security Act 1991, and if not, whether the period of her absence from Australia exceeded the six-week maximum portability period. A further issue was whether the calculation of this six-week period should account for fractions of a day, as argued by the applicant. The applicant also sought the exercise of discretion under section 1218C of the Act due to the alleged special circumstances.
The Tribunal considered the applicant's movements based on immigration records, which were not disputed. The applicant departed Australia on 14 August 2013 and returned on 25 September 2013. The Tribunal applied the legal principle established in *Prowse v McIntyre* (1961) 111 CLR 264, which dictates that the law takes no account of fractions of a day. Therefore, the calculation of the six-week period was not based on specific times of arrival and departure, but on the full days of absence. The Tribunal found that the applicant's absence, calculated without regard to fractions of a day, exceeded the six-week maximum portability period. The Tribunal also found that the circumstances, while unfortunate, did not meet the threshold for special circumstances to warrant the exercise of discretion under section 1218C.
Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Ms. Thea Thomas was subject to a Parenting Payment debt of $19,287.61 for the period 1 November 2013 to 23 November 2014.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Thomas and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2016] AATA 847
Cases Citing This Decision
1
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
0
Prowse v McIntyre
[1961] HCA 79
Prowse v McIntyre
[1961] HCA 79
Dowsley v Westpac Life Insurance Services Ltd
[2013] NSWSC 1208