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

This matter concerned three decisions made by the Department of Social Services concerning the applicant's eligibility for a Disability Support Pension (DSP) and Newstart Allowance (NSA). The applicant sought to challenge earlier decisions by the Department and an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) that had rejected her claims or affirmed certain payment start dates. The applicant had also appealed these decisions to the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1), which had affirmed the Departmental determinations. The current proceedings before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) involved the applicant's appeals against the three AAT1 decisions. A complicating factor was that the applicant's affairs were managed by her sister and subsequently the NSW Trustee and Guardian between January 2014 and February 2015.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant could establish eligibility for payment of the DSP and NSA from earlier dates than those determined by the Department and AROs, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider appeals lodged significantly outside the statutory 13-week appeal period. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine the earliest possible dates of payment for the first DSP claim, the second DSP claim, and the NSA claim, considering the applicant's contentions and the Department's position.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's appeals to the AAT1 were lodged substantially out of time, with the first DSP appeal being 184 weeks, the second DSP appeal 83 weeks, and the NSA appeal 87 weeks after the relevant ARO decisions. The notification letters for these decisions clearly stated the 13-week appeal period. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims for earlier payment dates, including the date of lodgement for the second DSP claim and the date of establishment of medical entitlement for the NSA claim. The Department argued that the earliest possible payment dates were the dates of the AAT1 reviews or the lodgement dates of the successful claims, and that the first DSP claim was unlikely to succeed on its merits. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the timeliness of the appeals and the applicant's eligibility for payment from the dates she sought.