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

This matter concerned a review of a decision by the Department of Social Services (the Department) that the applicants, Mr Robbie Stimpson and Ms Stimpson, were living as a couple and had consequently been overpaid their respective disability support pensions and carer payments. The applicants sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), asserting they were not a couple.

The AAT was required to determine whether the applicants were living together as a couple for the purposes of the relevant social security legislation. This involved considering the criteria outlined in section 4(3) of the Act, which encompass the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the household, social aspects, any sexual relationship, and the nature of the parties' commitment to each other. The Tribunal was also required to consider the subjective realities of the relationship and how the parties viewed themselves and each other.

The Tribunal weighed the evidence presented, including the applicants' joint ownership of a property and a joint mortgage, their stated intention regarding the property's ownership structure, and their respective demeanours when giving evidence. While acknowledging the applicants' assertions of maintaining separate financial arrangements and their respective extramarital relationships, the Tribunal found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, did not support a finding that they were not living as a couple. The Tribunal noted that the subjective commitment and empathy between the parties, as well as their interactions regarding property and daily life, were significant factors.

The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence presented that would justify a contrary finding or any special circumstances warranting a waiver of the debts. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision, as varied on 9 January 2019, that the applicants were a couple and that the overpayments were recoverable.