22 Sept 2000
The appellant did not, on the facts found by the District Court, alter his position in reliance on the overpayment and it was not inequitable to require repayment; therefore remission under s.77(2) was not available and the application for leave to appeal was declined as no question of law arose.
5 Jul 2000
The court held that s77(2) requires proof that the recipient altered their position to their detriment in reliance on the validity of the payment at the time of expenditure; spending on ordinary living expenses by itself and subsequent hardship from repayment do not satisfy that requirement, therefore remission was properly refused and repayment required.
6 Jul 1999
Appellant acted in good faith, did not intentionally contribute to the error, and materially altered his position by purchasing plant and employing staff in reliance on the payments so that requiring full repayment would be inequitable; accordingly the Corporation must remit part of the debt (one-third).