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

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by an applicant regarding the date from which her mobility allowance should be paid. The applicant had initially been granted the allowance in March 2015. Centrelink subsequently issued a notice in December 2015 indicating the allowance would continue until March 2016, and then issued a further notice in March 2016 advising of its cancellation from that date. The applicant contacted Centrelink in July and September 2016, discussing the cancellation and being invited to reapply. An Authorised Review Officer (ARO) later set aside the cancellation decision but determined the allowance could only be paid from September 2016. The AAT's first review affirmed the ARO's decision, leading to the applicant's further application for review by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the correct date from which the applicant's mobility allowance should be paid, given that the respondent accepted the applicant qualified for the allowance at the time of its cancellation. The applicant argued that the allowance should not have been cancelled due to administrative errors by Centrelink, that she should not be deprived of payments due to these errors, and that she did not receive the cancellation letter. She contended that without proof of posting, Centrelink could not rely on provisions deeming notice to have been "given".

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the allowance from the date of its cancellation, 29 March 2016, as accepted by the respondent. It was satisfied that the discretionary power under section 43(6) of the relevant Act should be exercised in this proceeding. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous AAT decision and substituted a new decision ordering that the applicant's mobility allowance be paid from 29 March 2016.