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

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Whyte against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on whether Mr Whyte was a member of a couple for the purposes of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), which would affect his entitlement to the JobSeeker Payment. The court was required to determine if the AAT had erred in finding that Mr Whyte and Ms Sae-Sueng were a couple, despite Mr Whyte's assertion that there was no sexual relationship between them and that financial arrangements were not entirely shared.

The legal issues before the court were whether the AAT correctly applied the principles for determining membership of a couple under the Act, and whether its findings of fact were supported by the evidence. Specifically, the court considered the weight to be given to various factors, including the financial aspects of the relationship, the nature of the commitment between Mr Whyte and Ms Sae-Sueng, and the social aspects of their relationship, such as companionship and emotional support. The court also had to consider the significance of Mr Whyte's declarations to the Department, including his claims for benefits where he identified Ms Sae-Sueng as his partner and their cohabitation.

The court affirmed the AAT's decision, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Whyte was a member of a couple. The AAT had considered a range of factors, including the pooling of financial resources, the fact that Ms Sae-Sueng was authorised to act on Mr Whyte's behalf in Centrelink matters, and Ms Sae-Sueng's application for a carer payment. The AAT also found the purchase of a new apartment, which accommodated Mr Whyte's mobility issues, to be indicative of a strong commitment to the relationship. While Mr Whyte provided alternative explanations for some of these factors at the hearing, the court found that the AAT's original findings were open to it on the evidence presented.