Social Security Appeals Tribunal
1: McMurray and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2015] AATA 159 | March 19, 2015
Court or Tribunal: Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Care Benefit, Family Assistance, Family Tax Benefit, Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B, SchoolKids bonus, Social Security Fraud
Judges: C Ermert Member
Background: From 2003 over the course of a decade, the woman was overpaid family tax and childcare benefits, and the Schoolkids bonus because of incorrect Centrelink computer coding. The woman contacted Centrelink in 2011 after her husband received a sizable pay rise, querying whether she was still entitled to the payments. Centrelink ruled she was, but three years later the agency discovered its error and asked her to repay the money, which the woman then disputed.
[Legal Issue]The woman was alerted by Centrelink to the overpayments on July 2012, but kept on receiving the overpayments.
The woman asserted she should not have to repay the overpayed amounts, including the amounts paid prior to July 2012, and the amounts paid after July 2012, because the debts had resulted solely from errors made by Centrelink.
[Court Orders]Tribunal member Conrad Ermert agreed the woman should not have to repay the $77,000 paid to her before July 2012, finding Centrelink raised the issue too late and the woman had received them in good faith.
"There is no evidence that [she] held any suspicions or doubts that she was not entitled to the payments. She said in evidence that she simply trusted the Department to make the correct payments," Mr Ermert said.
But he found the woman was still required to repay the money received after
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Care Benefit, Family Assistance, Family Tax Benefit, Family Tax Benefit Part A, Family Tax Benefit Part B, SchoolKids bonus, Social Security Fraud
Judges: C Ermert Member
Background: From 2003 over the course of a decade, the woman was overpaid family tax and childcare benefits, and the Schoolkids bonus because of incorrect Centrelink computer coding. The woman contacted Centrelink in 2011 after her husband received a sizable pay rise, querying whether she was still entitled to the payments. Centrelink ruled she was, but three years later the agency discovered its error and asked her to repay the money, which the woman then disputed.
[Legal Issue]The woman was alerted by Centrelink to the overpayments on July 2012, but kept on receiving the overpayments.
The woman asserted she should not have to repay the overpayed amounts, including the amounts paid prior to July 2012, and the amounts paid after July 2012, because the debts had resulted solely from errors made by Centrelink.
[Court Orders]Tribunal member Conrad Ermert agreed the woman should not have to repay the $77,000 paid to her before July 2012, finding Centrelink raised the issue too late and the woman had received them in good faith.
"There is no evidence that [she] held any suspicions or doubts that she was not entitled to the payments. She said in evidence that she simply trusted the Department to make the correct payments," Mr Ermert said.
But he found the woman was still required to repay the money received after
2: Yip & Wreford and Anor [2015] FamCAFC 21 | February 19, 2015
Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination
Judges: May JStrickland JThackray CJ
Background: The appellant father in this case sought a review of a child support departure determination and a subsequent Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision which both determined an increased taxable income for child support purposes. The father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court on this matter was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision.
[Legal Issue]This was an application for leave to appeal from the dismissal of an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which increased the appellant’s taxable income for child support purposes. The application was dismissed with costs. In its judgment, the court analysed and determined a number of significant questions of law arising out of the interpretation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) which would be of interest to family law specialists.
[Court Orders]The appeal application was dismissed. The Court found no error in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).
No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.
Catchwords: Appeal, Child Support, Departure Determination
Judges: May JStrickland JThackray CJ
Background: The appellant father in this case sought a review of a child support departure determination and a subsequent Social Security Appeals Tribunal decision which both determined an increased taxable income for child support purposes. The father’s appeal to the Federal Circuit Court on this matter was dismissed and the father now seeks to appeal that decision.
[Legal Issue]This was an application for leave to appeal from the dismissal of an appeal from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal which increased the appellant’s taxable income for child support purposes. The application was dismissed with costs. In its judgment, the court analysed and determined a number of significant questions of law arising out of the interpretation of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) which would be of interest to family law specialists.
[Court Orders]The appeal application was dismissed. The Court found no error in law by failing to refer to s 117(7A) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth).
No issue of procedural fairness arises – Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Appellant father ordered to pay costs.
3: Turner v Turner [2011] SSATACSA 1 | January 25, 2011
Court or Tribunal: Social Security Appeals Tribunal
Catchwords: Child Support
Judges: Anonymous MemberAnonymous Presiding Member
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]
Catchwords: Child Support
Judges: Anonymous MemberAnonymous Presiding Member
Background:
[Legal Issue]
[Court Orders]