YLGY and Secretary, Department of Health (Social services)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between YLGY (the applicant) and the Secretary, Department of Health, concerning the quantum of a financial hardship supplement. The applicant was eligible for this supplement due to her inability to afford residential aged care, stemming from her financial circumstances, including a significant share in a property that was deemed an unrealisable asset.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine what expenses should be taken into account when calculating the quantum of the financial hardship supplement. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the Department’s approach of restricting the calculation to "essential expenses" was appropriate, or if other expenditure items should have been included in assessing the applicant's financial hardship.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Department’s decision to limit the calculation of the hardship supplement to only "essential expenses" was not justified. It found that the applicant was experiencing significant hardship due to factors beyond her control, including the inability to sell or rent her property and substantial ongoing costs associated with its maintenance. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's total expenses, including non-essential items related to the property and her car, were substantial, and that imposing the full daily care fee would create an insuperable barrier to her accessing necessary residential care. Applying the principle that the hardship provisions are intended to ensure access to aged care based on need rather than ability to pay, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review improperly restricted the assessment of the applicant's financial situation.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Department's decision and remitted the matter for redetermination, indicating that a broader range of expenditure should be considered in calculating the appropriate financial hardship supplement.