Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1999] FCA 1774
The Special Benefit review form lodged by Mr Scott on 19 June 1995 was capable of being characterised as a claim for Special Benefit and therefore as an initial claim within s 100(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Section 100(2)(a)(i) covered Special Benefit as a social security benefit and did not require it to be similar in character to Disability Support Pension; that similarity requirement applied only to sub-paragraph (ii). Mr Scott was therefore entitled to Disability Support Pension from 19 June 1995 to 5 October 1995. However, neither the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), the Guide, nor the common law imposed on the Department a duty sounding in damages to inform the...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision and Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal in VG 666 of 1996 allowed; application in VG 69 of 1997 dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['disability Support Pension' 'special Benefit' 'initial Claim' 'backdating of Social Security Payments' 'breach of Statutory Duty' 'common Law Duty of Care' 'misfeasance in Public Office' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Immunity']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision and Application Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a Special Benefit review form lodged by Mr Scott on 19 June 1995 was an initial claim for the purposes of s 100(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).' 'Whether Special Benefit had to be similar in character to Disability Support Pension for s 100(2)(a) to apply.' 'Whether Mr Scott was entitled to Disability Support Pension from 19 June 1995 to 5 October 1995.' 'Whether the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), the Guide, or the common law imposed a duty of care or statutory duty sounding in damages on the Department to inform Mr and Mrs Scott of possible entitlements.' "Whether the Department or its officers acted maliciously, in bad faith, or committed misfeasance in public office in relation to Mr or Mrs Scott's claims." 'Whether the AAT member was liable in respect of the decision made on 15 October 1996.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Special Benefit review form lodged by Mr Scott on 19 June 1995 was capable of being characterised as a claim for Special Benefit and therefore as an initial claim within s 100(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth). Section 100(2)(a)(i) covered Special Benefit as a social security benefit and did not require it to be similar in character to Disability Support Pension; that similarity requirement applied only to sub-paragraph (ii). Mr Scott was therefore entitled to Disability Support Pension from 19 June 1995 to 5 October 1995. However, neither the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), the Guide, nor the common law imposed on the Department a duty sounding in damages to inform the...
Court Disposition
Appeal in VG 666 of 1996 allowed; application in VG 69 of 1997 dismissed.
Orders
- ['VG 666 of 1996: Appeal is allowed.' 'VG 666 of 1996: Decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 15 October 1996 is set aside.' 'VG 666 of 1996: Declare the applicant was entitled to payment of disability support pension from 19 June 1995 to 5 October 1995.' 'VG 666 of 1996: Order that the respondent pay...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment