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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Sultana against a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services regarding his age pension entitlement. The core dispute revolved around whether Mr Sultana had made a valid request for a review of his age pension assessment within the prescribed 13-week timeframe, specifically in relation to a decision made on 25 July 2017. The case was heard by C Edwardes M.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Sultana's visit to a Centrelink office on 29 August 2017 constituted a request for a review of the earlier decision, and if not, whether any subsequent actions or communications amounted to a timely request for review. The court also had to consider the impact of Mr Sultana's personal circumstances, including illness, limited education, and reliance on Centrelink to administer his pension correctly, on the interpretation of his actions.

The court reasoned that while a specific format or wording was not required for a request for review, the applicant must identify the decision or its effect. The evidence indicated that the visit on 29 August 2017 was recorded as an update to general living expenses, resulting in a minor adjustment to the pension amount, rather than a request to review the initial assessment of the Bollard Trust. The court noted the brevity of Centrelink file notes due to time pressures, but found no evidence to persuade it that Mr Sultana was seeking a review of the original decision prior to 23 March 2018. The court accepted that a formal request for review occurred on 23 March 2018, which was then forwarded for a formal review.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision, finding that there was no evidence of a request for review within the 13-week period following the departmental letters of 25 July 2017 and 29 August 2017. Consequently, any entitlement would only be from the date of the valid request on 23 March 2018.