• Centrelink is to determine the amount of compensation given in relation to each of the 17 compensable events for which the $330,000 compensation lump sum was awarded, having regard to paragraphs 34 and 35 of these Reasons; and
• Recalculate the lump sum compensation preclusion period having regard to the findings of the Tribunal at paragraph 27 of these Reasons.

SOCIAL SECURITY - Jobseeker Payment - lump sum compensation preclusion period - special circumstances - compensation claim settled by agreement - aggregation of multiple lump sums - lump sums to be apportioned to separate dates of injury - preclusion periods amended - decision under review set aide and remitted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This application is about a decision made by Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) to reject a claim for jobseeker payment made by Mr Gibbon, on the basis that he is subject to a lump sum compensation preclusion period.
2. Centrelink wrote to Mr Gibbon on 7 December 2023, advising that he was subject to a lump sum compensation preclusion period beginning on 5 December 2023 and ending on 26 July 2027.[1] This letter explained that during the compensation preclusion period Mr Gibbon would not be able to receive income support from Centrelink.
3. Mr Gibbon made a claim for jobseeker payment on 18 August 2025.[2] The following day, on 19 August 2025, Centrelink notified Mr Gibbon that his claim had been rejected.[3] A request for an internal review of the decision was made the same day.[4]
4. On 22 August 2025, an authorised review officer (ARO) conducted a review and affirmed the decision.[5]
5. On 18 August 2025, Mr Gibbon made an application seeking independent review of the decision from the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
6. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 3 December 2025. Mr Gibbon appeared by telephone and gave affirmed evidence. The Tribunal had before it 161 pages of relevant documents provided by Centrelink (the hearing papers), copies of which had been given to Mr Gibbon before the hearing. The Tribunal had also received a Statement of Financial Circumstances prepared by Mr Gibbon.
7. While discussing his application at hearing, Mr Gibbon informed the Tribunal that he had said as much as he wished to say, and he left the call. The Tribunal deferred making a decision and issued a direction inviting Mr Gibbon to provide any additional information he would like the Tribunal to consider in relation to his application. Mr Gibbon contacted the Tribunal on 12 January 2026 and confirmed he did not wish to provide any further material for consideration by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal will make a decision on the material currently before it. If Mr Gibbon is dissatisfied with this outcome, it will be open to him to make an application for further review to the second level of the Tribunal.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act).
2. The Tribunal has also had regard to relevant parts of the Australian Government policy document, the Social Security Guide (the Guide). The Tribunal is not strictly bound to follow the policy set out in the Guide. However, where the policy in the Guide is not inconsistent with the legislation, it is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider when reviewing a decision.[6] The Tribunal considers that in this case, those parts of the policy which are referred to in these Reasons are not inconsistent with the legislation, and that it is appropriate to have regard to them.
3. The issues raised by the application are:
   • Whether a lump sum preclusion period applies and whether it has been calculated correctly; and, if so,
   • Whether there are special circumstances allowing all or part of Mr Gibbon's lump sum compensation to be disregarded, so that the preclusion period is ended or shortened.

Issue 1 - Whether a lump sum preclusion period applies and whether it has been calculated correctly

1. Part 3.14 of the Act concerns how compensation payments affect a person's entitlement to income support. These provisions are intended to prevent a person from receiving both compensation and income support for the same period.[7]
2. Section 1169 of the Act says that if a person receives a lump sum compensation payment, then any compensation affected payment is not payable to them during a lump sum preclusion period. A social security benefit, such as jobseeker payment, is a compensation affected payment in accordance with sections 17 and 23 of the Act.
3. Subsection 17(2) defines compensation to include a payment under a scheme of insurance, or a compensation or damages payment made wholly or partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn resulting from personal injury.
4. Where a claim is settled by agreement, paragraph 17(3)(a) of the Act provides that 50% of the gross lump sum compensation payment (the compensation part) is treated as having been received for economic loss and is used to calculate the person's lump sum preclusion period (the 50% rule).
5. The Guide at topic 4.13.2.30 Compensation part of lump sum - 50% rule states that the 50% rule is applied to the gross compensation lump sum liable to be paid to the person under the terms of the award or settlement. The only allowable deduction is any periodic compensation that must be repaid as a term of the settlement.
6. Section 1171 of the Act provides that if a person receives two or more lump sum payments in relation to the same compensable event and at least one of the payments is made wholly or partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn, then the payments are aggregated (added together) and they are deemed to have been received on the day on which the last payment was received.
7. Further to this, the Guide at topic 4.13.2.50 Aggregation of multiple lump sums states the following in relation to assessing lump sum settlements in respect of multiple compensable injuries:

This section explains how to calculate a compensation recipient's compensation preclusion period where the compensation recipient has received more than one lump sum in respect of a single compensable injury or in respect of a number of compensable injuries.

Whether the compensation recipient has received a lump sum compensation payment in respect of a single injury or in respect of a number of injuries, it is critical to establish the date of injury (DOI) and then marry that DOI to the lump sum compensation received by the compensation recipient.

The preclusion period calculation provided by SSAct subsection 1170(4) still applies, with reference to be had to SSAct section 17(5A):

• For the purposes of subsection (2B) of this section and SSAct Part 3.14, the event that gives rise to a person's entitlement to compensation for a disease, injury or condition is
  • if the disease, injury or condition was caused by an accident - the accident, or
    • in any other case - the disease, injury or condition first becoming apparent

and is not, for example, the decision or settlement under which the compensation is payable.

If it is not clear from the terms of settlement of the compensation recipient's compensation claim what the actual DOI is, the information gathering power under SS(Admin)Act section 192 can be used to ascertain the DOI.

Note: If no information, from any source, is available regarding the amount of compensation given in relation to each compensable event, the total settlement is to be divided by the number of separate compensable events.

• Compensation recipient has received a lump sum compensation payment in respect of one injury with one DOI:
  • Step 1: Establish DOI.
    • Step 2: Usual procedure for calculating compensation preclusion period.
• Compensation recipient has received a lump sum compensation payment in respect of 2 or more injuries with 2 or more DOI:
  • Step 1: Establish the DOI of each separate injury.
  • Step 2: Apportion the separate lump sums to the corresponding separate DOI and then calculate the compensation preclusion periods as usual.

1. Section 1170 of the Act explains how to calculate the lump sum preclusion period. The length of the preclusion period, in weeks (rounded down), is calculated by dividing the compensation part of the lump sum by the income cut-out amount that applies when the compensation is received. In this case, the relevant income cut-out amount is $1,198.70.[8]
2. If a person receives both periodic compensation payments and a lump sum compensation payment, then the preclusion period begins on the day following the last day of the periodic payments period.[9]
3. Mr Gibbon suffered multiple injuries occurring during the course of his employment with various employers between [February] 1989 and [July 2005].[10]
4. It is common ground that on 12 July 2016, he received a lump sum impairment payment of $86,748 in respect of an injury he sustained on [July 2005] under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986.[11] He later settled a claim under the Return to Work Act 2014 for $330,000 [in] October 2023.[12]
5. The agreement reached by Mr Gibbon and the Return to Work Corporation of South Australia [in] October 2023, titled Redemption of weekly payments and medical and life expenses (the Redemption Deed), shows that the $330,000 compensation amount related to the following injuries:[13]
   • A bruised left knee [in] February 1989,
   • Bruised left 4th metatarsal on 9 November 1989,
   • Right thumb soft tissue injury on 19 February 1990,
   • Left knee injury on 27 June 1990,
   • Bruised left knee on 16 November 1990,
   • Bruised right foot on 26 August 1991,
   • Burn to left forearm on 8 October 1991,
   • Left knee injury on 4 February 1992,
   • Left knee injury on 30 November 1992,
   • Tear to right forearm on 7 April 1993,
   • Right hand crush injury on 26 July 1993,
   • Sequelae of lower back on 15 March 1999,
   • Compound fractured right middle finger on 30 December 1999,
   • Burns to right hand on 26 March 2000,
   • Penetrating injury to right thigh on 22 September 2003,
   • Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome on 21 January 2005, and
   • Chondral damage to right patella and medial femoral condyle, sequelae of left knee on [July 2005].
6. The last injury on [July 2005] is recorded under claim number 02960508/15.
7. It appears Centrelink determined that Mr Gibbon was subject to a compensation preclusion period of 190 weeks by adding together the gross lump sum compensation payment of $330,000, the impairment payment of $86,748 and a second impairment payment of $41,077.21 and dividing 50% of the resulting figure by the relevant income cut-out amount of $1,198.70.[14] Because Mr Gibbon received periodic compensation payments in respect of the [July 2005] injury up to 4 December 2023, the compensation preclusion period was said to begin the following day on 5 December 2023 and end 190 weeks later, on 26 July 2027.[15]
8. In affirming the decision under review, the ARO made findings that Mr Gibbon received a lump sum compensation payment of $330,000 and an impairment payment of $86,748 (a consent order at page 60 of the hearing papers confirms that this amount relates to the injury on [July 2005]). They made no finding that Mr Gibbon had received a further impairment payment of $41,077.21.
9. This amount is referred to in a Centrelink record at page 113 of the hearing papers, suggesting it was received by Mr Gibbon on 3 August 2010. However, the balance of the materials before the Tribunal do not corroborate this. Rather, a fax received by Centrelink from the compensation payer on 29 June 2016, suggests that a non-economic loss lump sum payment of $39,227.21 was made to Mr Gibbon on 31 August 2010 under claim reference 02960508/15 in relation to his injury on [July 2005].[16] A record containing similar information, confirming a non-economic loss lump sum payment of $39,227.21 on 31 August 2010, was received by Centrelink on 20 October 2023.[17] On this background, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that an impairment payment of $39,227.21 was made to Mr Gibbon in relation to the injury sustained on [July 2005], in addition to the impairment payment of $86,748 and finds accordingly.
10. As discussed, section 1171 of the Act requires that where a person receives two or more lump sum payments in relation to the same compensable event and at least one of the payments is made wholly or partly in respect of lost earnings or lost capacity to earn, then the payments are aggregated. In respect of the injury on [July 2005], Mr Gibbon received impairment payments of $39,227.21 and $86,748. In the ordinary course, these amounts would be added to the gross amount of Mr Gibbon's lump sum compensation amount of $330,000 for the purposes of calculating his preclusion period.
11. However, the Tribunal observes that the Compensation Advice of Lump Sum Payments form provided to Centrelink by the compensation payer on 20 October 2023 confirms that the gross lump sum settlement amount of $330,000 was paid to Mr Gibbon to settle more than one compensation claim.[18]
12. Consistent with this, the Redemption Deed shows that the agreement reached by Mr Gibbon and the compensation payer [in] October 2023 related to 17 separate injuries sustained between 1989 and 2005, each recorded against unique claim numbers, including the injury sustained on [July 2005].[19] In accordance with the written agreement, Mr Gibbon received $330,000 to redeem and to "wholly discharge" the compensation payer's liability to make weekly payments and to pay compensation for medical and other expenses.[20]
13. Nothing in the Redemption Deed or in the balance of the materials before the Tribunal confirms what amount or proportion of the $330,000 settlement sum was paid in relation to Mr Gibbon's injury on [July 2005]. There is nothing to suggest that either the original decision maker or the ARO turned their minds to the question of how the lump sum of $330,000 should be apportioned in respect of Mr Gibbon's various injuries. Rather, the preclusion period has been calculated on the basis that the entirety of the $330,000 sum was received in respect of the injury sustained on [July 2005].
14. The Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement amount of $330,000 included a component for lost earnings or lost capacity to earn and finds accordingly.[21] However, the Tribunal is not satisfied without further information that Centrelink has correctly treated the entirety of the $330,000 settlement amount as relating to the compensable injury on [July 2005] and therefore being subject to aggregation with the impairment payments of $39,227.21 and $86,748.
15. The Tribunal is unable to determine on the information before it the appropriate apportionment of the $330,000 lump sum in respect of the 17 separate injuries outlined in the Redemption Deed.
16. Accordingly, the Tribunal sends the matter back for Centrelink to:
    • Seek further information in determining the compensation preclusion period, including the amount of compensation given in relation to each of the 17 compensable events for which the $330,000 compensation lump sum was paid; and
    • Apportion the $330,000 lump sum to the corresponding separate dates of injury to calculate any compensation preclusion periods arising.
17. If no information is available confirming the amount of compensation given in relation to each compensable event, then the $330,000 settlement sum is to be divided equally between the 17 compensable events.
18. In the event that the preclusion period is recalculated on the basis that one seventeenth of the $330,000 settlement sum is to be apportioned to the [July 2005] injury and aggregated with the impairment payments of $39,227.21 and $86,748, this is likely to result in a determination that Mr Gibbon's preclusion period had ended by the time of his claim for jobseeker payment on 18 August 2025.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with orders that:

• Centrelink is to determine the amount of compensation given in relation to each of the 17 compensable events for which the $330,000 compensation lump sum was awarded, having regard to paragraphs 34 and 35 of these Reasons; and
• Recalculate the lump sum compensation preclusion period having regard to the findings of the Tribunal at paragraph 27 of these Reasons.

[6] G v MIBP [2018] FCA 1229 at [204] and [266]; See also Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 and Hneidi and Others v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20.

[7] Naim Haidar and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1998] AATA 88 at [4].

[11] Pages 60, 72 and 77 of the hearing papers.

[12] Pages 73 and 83 of the hearing papers.

[15] Pages 111 and 132 of the hearing papers.

[18] Pages 72 and 73 of the hearing papers.

[20] Pages 74 and 75 of the hearing papers.