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

This matter concerned applications by Mr Sesalim and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services for review of decisions relating to Mr Sesalim's Disability Support Pension (DSP). The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Sesalim qualified for the DSP as at 10 August 2017, the relevant cancellation date, and whether he was entitled to unlimited portability of that pension from that date. The Tribunal considered documentary evidence, including the transcript of prior proceedings and recent correspondence regarding Mr Sesalim's candidature for a higher degree.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether Mr Sesalim was qualified for the DSP on 10 August 2017, and second, whether he was entitled to unlimited portability of the DSP from that date. The assessment of qualification for the DSP involved considering whether Mr Sesalim had a physical, intellectual, or psychiatric impairment that attracted a rating of 20 points or more under the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011, and whether he had a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal applied the criteria set out in section 94 of the Social Security Act 1991 and the Impairment Tables. It noted that to qualify for the DSP, a person must satisfy all three criteria: having an impairment, the impairment attracting a rating of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, and a continuing inability to work. The Impairment Tables require a condition to be permanent, meaning it has been fully diagnosed, fully treated, fully stabilised, and is more likely than not to persist for more than two years.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Sesalim did not satisfy the requirements of sections 94(1)(b) and (c) of the Act as at 10 August 2017, and therefore did not qualify for the DSP. Consequently, the question of unlimited portability did not arise. The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decisions and substituted its own findings that Mr Sesalim did not qualify for the DSP and was not eligible for unlimited portability.