Post by Denis-NFA on Jan 5, 2013 7:34:24 GMT 7
Some interesting findings contained within this appeal at www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/aat/2012/910
2 things stood out for me,
one being that the applicants solicitor is the same solicitor who represented the person who recently got their residency re-instated namely M Butt, Welfare Rights Centre; and
secondly, as noted at paragraph 8 under Issues - Four of these five factors noted in the section list further and more specific matters to which a decision maker must have regard. It is not an exhaustive list. A decision maker can go further and wider, and must consider the total picture of the relationship that emerges from these factors, and which of them weigh against a marriage like relationship and which weigh in favour of it. Financial cooperation, cohabitation, a sexual relationship, cooperative household arrangements or mutual commitment, occurring alone, do not disclose, solely, a marriage like relationship. (Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546)
and by way of background read paragraph 3 and 4 -
The Applicant and her former husband married in 2001 in Lebanon after first meeting there just a few weeks earlier. It was the Applicant’s second marriage. Their first child was stillborn in the following year. In February 2004 the Applicant lodged a claim for Parenting Payment Single, declaring she had separated from her husband. Her second surviving child was born in October 2004 and she claimed Family Tax Benefit (FTB) in respect of that child. In April 2007 another child was born and another claim for FTB was made by the Applicant.
In February 2010 the Secretary concluded an investigation into the Applicant’s circumstances and determined that she was a member of a couple with her husband from 27 January 2004. Her Parenting Payment Single was cancelled and debts of overpayment of Parenting Payment Single, Child Care Benefit, Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Rebate were raised against her, totalling more than $92,000.
The Applicant and her husband divorced in 2010.
2 things stood out for me,
one being that the applicants solicitor is the same solicitor who represented the person who recently got their residency re-instated namely M Butt, Welfare Rights Centre; and
secondly, as noted at paragraph 8 under Issues - Four of these five factors noted in the section list further and more specific matters to which a decision maker must have regard. It is not an exhaustive list. A decision maker can go further and wider, and must consider the total picture of the relationship that emerges from these factors, and which of them weigh against a marriage like relationship and which weigh in favour of it. Financial cooperation, cohabitation, a sexual relationship, cooperative household arrangements or mutual commitment, occurring alone, do not disclose, solely, a marriage like relationship. (Pelka v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2006] FCA 735; (2006) 151 FCR 546)
and by way of background read paragraph 3 and 4 -
The Applicant and her former husband married in 2001 in Lebanon after first meeting there just a few weeks earlier. It was the Applicant’s second marriage. Their first child was stillborn in the following year. In February 2004 the Applicant lodged a claim for Parenting Payment Single, declaring she had separated from her husband. Her second surviving child was born in October 2004 and she claimed Family Tax Benefit (FTB) in respect of that child. In April 2007 another child was born and another claim for FTB was made by the Applicant.
In February 2010 the Secretary concluded an investigation into the Applicant’s circumstances and determined that she was a member of a couple with her husband from 27 January 2004. Her Parenting Payment Single was cancelled and debts of overpayment of Parenting Payment Single, Child Care Benefit, Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Rebate were raised against her, totalling more than $92,000.
The Applicant and her husband divorced in 2010.
