Chambers, E.M. v Department of Social Security [1987] FCA 250

RSQ

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } WESTERN AUSTRALIA

) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 127 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN ;

ELSA MODANO LAMBRICHE CHAMBERS Applicant

AND:

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent MINUTE OF ORDER JUDGES MAKING ORDER: FOX, JENKINSON AND WILCOX JJ. DATE _OF ORDER: 21 MAY 1987 WHERE MADE: PERTH.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

l. The appeal be dismissed.

ote: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } WESTERN AUSTRALIA ) DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. WAG 127 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION }

BETWEEN :

ELSA _MODANO_ LAMBRICHE CHAMBERS Applicant

AND:

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Respondent

CORAM: FOX, JENKINSON AND WILCOX JJ. DATE: 21 MAY 1987

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: This is an appeal against a decision of the

Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Social Security on the question whether the applicant should be regarded, for the purpose of computing social security payments, as a married person or an

unmarried person.

There was some initial confusion before the Tribunal as to the nature of the benefits paid to Mrs Chambers, whose

computation is in issue, at the relevant time: 27 November 1984

to 1 April 1985. But it was eventually agreed that the relevant benefit was the unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefits are

pavable under Part VII of the Social Security Act 1947. Section

112, which is contained within that Part, stipulates rates of benefit. which rates distinguish between married persons and unmarried persons. At the time taken as being relevant, s.112(4) provided that, where the spouse of a married person "is living apart from the married person in pursuance of a separation agreement in writing or of a decree, judgment or order of a court or in such circumstances that the Secretary 15 satisfied that the separation is likely to be permanent," the rate of the unemployment benefit should be increased to the unmarried rate. If the relevant time was taken as being that which followed the amendment of sub-section (4), it is clear that there would be no