Stehr and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

[2007] AATA 1367

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1367

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2006/2564

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		KEVIN STEHR

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S E Frost, Member

Date8 May 2007

PlaceSydney

Decision For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.................[sgd].............................

S E Frost
  Member

CATCHWORDS

SOCIAL SECURITY – lump sum compensation payment – application of preclusion period – whether special circumstances apply – decision under review affirmed

Social Security Act 1991 – sections 17, 1170, 1171, 1184K

Re Beadle and Director General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1

REASONS FOR DECISION

8 May 2007 Mr S E Frost, Member        

1.      At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and my reasons were stated orally.  After the oral decision was delivered the Applicant queried whether he would receive a copy of the reasons for the decision.  The Applicant’s inquiry has been taken to have been made pursuant to sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 as a request for a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

2.      The oral reasons for decision were transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service.  I have reviewed the transcript and have found it necessary to make some minor amendments to it to correct inaccuracies and inadvertent omissions.  As amended, the reasons are set out below.

3.      This was a case about Newstart allowance and the effect of lump sum compensation preclusion periods.  There was no dispute on the facts in this case. 

4. There were lump sum compensation payments that were made to Mr Stehr in 2004 and 2006. The combined effect of the legislative provisions – sections 17, 1170 and 1171 of the Social Security Act 1991 (“the Act”) – was that those two payments should be taken together for the purposes of calculating the preclusion period. I examined all the legislative provisions in relation to the calculation of the preclusion period and I was satisfied that the preclusion period had been calculated correctly at 85 weeks.

5.      The question that arose then was whether special circumstances were in play to assist Mr Stehr’s case, bearing in mind the restrictions that are placed on this Tribunal on the question of special circumstances.  It was explained to Mr Stehr that the authorities, in particular, Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD 1, say that a person’s circumstances do not need to be unique, but they need to be unusual, uncommon or out of the ordinary.

6. After inviting Mr Stehr to set out what he thought were his special circumstances, and considering what he put to me, I find that Mr Stehr has not demonstrated anything unusual, uncommon or out of the ordinary and as a result he has not satisfied me that he has special circumstances within section 1184K of the Act.

7.      Accordingly I affirm the decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S E Frost, Member

Signed:         ...............[sgd].................................................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  8 May 2007
Date of Decision  8 May 2007
Applicant  Kevin Stehr
Solicitor for the Respondent     Centrelink Legal Services Branch