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

The applicant, Mr Towle, sought a review of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to suspend his Disability Support Pension (DSP). The dispute centred on whether the DSP was correctly suspended, with the applicant arguing that he was not privy to his non-residentially qualified partner's financial information and that the Department was in a conflict of interest. The matter was heard by R W Dunne SM.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's DSP had been correctly suspended by the Department of Social Services. This involved considering whether the applicant had complied with his obligations to provide information to the Department regarding his circumstances, particularly in relation to his partner, and whether the Department had acted within its statutory powers in suspending the payment.

The court found that the applicant's DSP was correctly suspended. It referred to sections 68 and 81 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which empower the Secretary to require a person receiving a social security payment to provide information that might affect the payment, and to suspend or cancel the payment for non-compliance with such notices. The court noted that the applicant had been advised that he was clearly partnered and that the Department required all requested information for both him and his partner, regardless of whether the partner was receiving a payment. The applicant's failure to provide the requested employment and income details for his partner was a breach of his obligations under section 68. The court also considered section 24 of the Social Security Act 1991, which allows the Secretary to treat a person as not being a member of a couple for special reasons, but found this was not applicable given the applicant's failure to provide necessary information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant's DSP was correctly suspended. The court indicated that for the suspension decision to be reconsidered, the applicant would need to provide answers to all outstanding questions from the Department.