Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Rolley

In the matter of Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Rolley, the court was called upon to determine the correct approach to calculating a person's ordinary income under the Social Security Act 1991. This case arose from a dispute between the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services and Mrs Rolley regarding her eligibility for benefits. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the ordinary income test, particularly how to determine the amount of a person's ordinary income on a yearly basis under Step 1 of the test.

The primary legal issue revolved around the methodology for calculating a person's annual rate of income. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had ruled in favour of Mrs Rolley, adopting a specific calculation method which the Secretary contested. The Secretary argued that the AAT's approach did not align with previous case law, specifically Harris v Director-General (Social Security) and Haldane-Stevenson v Director-General of Social Security, which suggested a more flexible approach to determining the annual rate of income. The court was tasked with determining whether the AAT's method was consistent with the legislative intent and relevant precedent.

In its decision, the court found that the AAT's approach to calculating ordinary income was not inconsistent with the statutory provisions or the relevant case law. The court noted that the Harris case established that the method of determining a person's annual rate of income should be fair and appropriate to the circumstances of the case. The court upheld the AAT's finding that the method used by Mrs Rolley, which included averaging her income over the period of employment and then multiplying by 52, was a fair method of ascertaining her current rate of income. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.