19 Jan 2000
The appellant did not alter his position in reliance on the overpayment—expenditures were discretionary or reimbursed and did not create a detrimental reliance—therefore it is not inequitable to require repayment and remission under s77(2) is refused; the respondent's decision not to remit is confirmed.
10 Dec 1999
The court accepted the review officer's findings that the appellant did not alter his position in reliance on the overpayments to an extent that would make repayment inequitable; accordingly remission under s77(2) was not justified and the appeal is dismissed, subject to permitting a realistic repayment arrangement.
30 Aug 1999
Where the recipient merely spent the overpaid funds on ordinary living expenses and did not otherwise alter his position in reliance on the payment, s.77(2) does not permit remission; therefore repayment may be required.
18 Jun 1999
The Review Officer's findings that the appellant contributed to the error and did not receive the payments in good faith are accepted; the appellant did not alter his position beyond spending on general living expenses, so he fails the requirements of section 77(2) and remission is refused.
28 Jul 1994
Because the appellant received the original payment in good faith but did not alter his position in reliance on any anticipated amount from a later award (he had no knowledge of the amount), the respondent was entitled to recover the identified overpayment by deducting it from the subsequent award; therefore remission under s.77(2) was not justified and the appeal fails.