Compensation

Claasz and Comcare (Compensation) [2019] AATA 800

This review concerned the amount of compensation Comcare was liable to pay the applicant. The applicant retired from work due to an injury and received a lump sum benefit under a superannuation scheme as a result of her retirement. The issue in this matter was the calculation of the weekly compensation payments from the superannuation scheme.


Migration and Refugee

1614274 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 5642

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas. The applicants were a married couple from Fiji who claimed to fear harm from the Fijian government if they returned, primarily because of their anti-government opinions.

1618712 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 602

The AAT affirmed the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from the political party in power if he returned to Bangladesh because he was a supporter of an opposing political party.

1816669 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 795

The Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants Protection visas. The applicants were a married couple from Iraq who stated that they feared Shia militia groups would harm them if they returned. The AAT remitted the decision to the Department for reconsideration finding the applicants met the refugee criterion for a Protection visa.

Meda (Migration) [2019] AATA 1039

The AAT affirmed the Department of Home Affairs decision to cancel the applicant’s Student visa. The applicant remained in Australia working part-time for 15 months after his University enrolment was cancelled.

Offord (Migration) [2019] AATA 921

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) visas. The issue before the AAT was the requirement that the applicants’ business and personal assets in Australia had certain net values. The AAT remitted the decision under review to the Department for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicants met the requirement in question.


Social Services (second review)

Cordin and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 887

This review concerned overpayments made to the applicant in circumstances where he was unrightfully receiving the family tax benefit and parenting payments. The primary issue was whether the debt should be written off. The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision regarding the amount of overpayments the applicant was liable for.


Taxation and Commercial

Hourigan and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2019] AATA 558

This review was about amended tax assessments issued to the applicant increasing his tax liability. The primary issue concerned the calculation of penalties arising from the applicant’s conduct in relation to his incorrect tax returns, specifically administrative penalties and shortfall interest charges.