The Department of Human Services determined that neither parent was providing eligible care for their child and subsequently that Mr Carter was not required to pay child support. Mrs Mirvac claimed that she was still providing substantial care for the child without living with him. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The applicant made a claim to Comcare for compensation based on anxiety as a result of the actions of his employer. Comcare argued that the instigating event was outside of the scope of his 'employment by the Commonwealth' and as such the applicant's employer wasn't liable. The AAT set aside Comcare's decision and substituted a decision that the applicant was entitled to compensation.
Migration and Refugee
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant’s Protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear for his safety as a former Internal Security Forces officer in Lebanon. The AAT affirmed the decision.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination visa. The applicant claimed that he had the relevant qualifications and relevant work experience required for the visa. The AAT affirmed the decision under review.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant Child visas to two nationals of Ethiopia. The applicants claimed, among other things, that they were under the age limit. The AAT affirmed the decision.
Social Services (second review)
The applicant sought an extension of financial hardship assistance, to support her residential aged care, with the Department of Health. The Department determined that the applicant didn't qualify for further assistance, as the applicant had a property that could be used to contribute towards her aged care. The AAT affirmed the decision on review.
Taxation and Commercial
The applicant objected to the validity of the transfer of a registered business name, within the context of the national business name registration scheme. The AAT affirmed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission had no discretion in the matter and registration was required.
The applicant claimed $8,130 in tax deductions related to overtime meal allowances, the Commissioner of Taxation disallowed the claim as the meals didn't meet the necessary requirements. The AAT affirmed the decision