Pensioner wins stunning legal victory over Centrelink

In a case that gives new meaning to the term ‘friends with benefits’, a Melbourne pensioner has won a stunning legal victory over Centrelink.

Centrelink had ordered the man, identified only as Mr T (not to be mistaken for the bejewelled A-Team TV series star), repay extra money he’d received while claiming to be a single pensioner between 2013 and 2015.

The benefits agency claimed that Mr T had, in fact, been in a de facto relationship with a woman, Ms D, during that period, The Daily Telegraph reported, so was eligible for pension payments of $669 a fortnight as part of a couple, not the $888 he’d received.

But the newspaper reported that Mr T argued in an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that although he shared a bed with Ms D and occasionally had “sexual relations” with her, they were not in a relationship.

His argument was accepted by the tribunal.

“Their sexual relations do not appear to have the emotional connection required of a sexual relationship,” the AAT said in a decision reported by The Daily Telegraph.

“There is no degree of commitment to one another other than that of [a] mutually convenient and reasonably friendly arrangement.”

The AAT accepted that although Ms D had contributed toward Mr T’s rent and utility bills, their relationship was more than of landlord-tenant. Mr T had two other tenants in the flat, including his adult son.

According to the government’s guide to social security law, which was released on March 20, there are five factors that are considered when deciding whether a claimant is in a de facto relationship: financial aspects, social aspects, the nature of the household, the nature of the commitment and the presence or absence of a sexual relationship.

“No single factor should be seen as conclusive and not all factors need to be present,” the guide says of making a decision on whether a relationship is a de facto one. “For instance, the presence or absence of a sexual relationship is considered but does not, by itself, indicate whether or not a person is a member of a couple.”

It says an important consideration is whether the two people have an “ongoing and exclusive” sexual relationship, and whether that relationship is of a long-term nature.

Likewise, the government’s guide says that a lack of financial interdependence did not necessarily rule out the presence of a de facto relationship.

How would you have ruled on this case? Are you surprised this type of relationship doesn’t mean Mr T and Ms D are a couple?