1. On 18 October 2024, the applicant made a second claim for disability support pension in relation to his mental health condition. On 8 November 2024, a Job Capacity Assessment Report was prepared by Centrelink, which assessed the applicant's Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised, and likely to persist for more than 2 years. Centrelink subsequently granted the applicant's second claim for disability support pension on 20 November 2024.

1. On 28 November 2024, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for first review of the decision in relation his first claim for disability support pension.
2. On 14 January 2025, Workcover Queensland informed Centrelink that the applicant had reached a settlement with Workcover Queensland on 10 December 2024 for a lump sum settlement of $168,469.63.
3. On 21 January 2025, Centrelink informed the applicant and his solicitors that the applicant is subject to a compensation preclusion period from 30 July 2024 to 7 July 2025. Centrelink also sent a notice that the applicant's disability support pension payments were cancelled because of the compensation preclusion period.
4. On 25 November 2025, the Tribunal affirmed the decision in relation to the first claim for disability support pension. With respect to the applicant's mental health conditions, the Tribunal was not satisfied the condition had been reasonably treated and stabilised at the time of the claim in February 2024 or within 13 weeks after. In relation to the musculoskeletal conditions, the Tribunal concluded that the conditions were diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised. However, there was no information relevant to the time of claim which in the supported an assessment of more than zero impairment points.
5. Section 131D of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) provides:

(1) A person whose interests are affected by an ART social services decision may apply to the Tribunal for review (the second review) of the decision. > > (2) However, an application cannot be made for second review if the ART social services decision was made in accordance with subsection 103(2) (decision agreed by parties). > > (3) An ART social services decision is: > > (a) for an eligible social services decision that has been affirmed by the Tribunal - the decision as affirmed; or > > (b) for an eligible social services decision that has been varied by the Tribunal - the decision as varied; or > > (c) for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remade by the Tribunal - the decision as remade; or > > (d) for an eligible social services decision that has been set aside and remitted to the decision-maker by the Tribunal - the decision as set aside; or > > (e) for an eligible social services decision made under section 92 or subsection 95N(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 - the decision as made.

6. The applicant made the application for second review of the decision by the Tribunal on 5 March 2025.

1. Pursuant to section 101 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal may dismiss an application for review, at any stage of a proceeding, where it is satisfied the application:

a. is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or > > b. has no reasonable prospect of success; or > > c. is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Tribunal

1. Item 8 of section 147 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) provides that where a person seeks review of a decision and obtains a favourable result, the date of effect of that favourable decision is governed by when the person requested review. If the person requested review within 13 weeks of receiving notice of that decision, the date of effect of the decision would be the date of the original decision. If the person requested review more than 13 weeks after receiving notice the decision, the date of effect of the decision would be the date of the request for review.
2. Section 237 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) provides the following in relation to notices:

(1) If notice of a decision under the social security law is: > > (a) delivered to a person personally; or > > (b) left at the address of the place of residence or business of the person last known to the Secretary; or > > (c) sent by prepaid post to the postal address of the person last known to the Secretary; > > notice of the decision is taken, for the purposes of the social security law, to have been given to the person. > > (2) Notice of a decision under the social security law may be given to a person by properly addressing, prepaying and posting the document as a letter. (3) If notice of a decision is given in accordance with subsection (2), notice of the decision is taken to have been given to the person at the time at which the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post unless the contrary is proved.

3. Section 23 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) contains the dictionary and subsection 23(12) provides as follows:

If: > > (a) section 237 of the Administration Act applies to a notice of a decision under this Act; or > > (b) sections 28A and 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (the Interpretation Act) apply to a notice under this Act; > > section 237 of the Administration Act, or sections 28A and 29 of the Interpretation Act, as the case may be, apply to the notice even if the Secretary is satisfied that the person did not actually receive the notice.

4. Section 14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) provides as follows:

1) For the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth, unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of an electronic communication: > > (a) the time of receipt of the electronic communication is the time when the electronic communication becomes capable of being retrieved by the addressee at an electronic address designated by the addressee; or > > (b) the time of receipt of the electronic communication at another electronic address of the addressee is the time when both: > > > (i) the electronic communication has become capable of being retrieved by the addressee at that address; and > > > > (ii) the addressee has become aware that the electronic communication has been sent to that address. > > (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), unless otherwise agreed between the originator and the addressee of the electronic communication, it is to be assumed that the electronic communication is capable of being retrieved by the addressee when it reaches the addressee's electronic address.

5. Accordingly, once a notice is sent by Centrelink, the notice is deemed to have been given to the applicant when it reaches the applicant's electronic address. The Centrelink records show that the applicant was registered to receive communications in his MyGov inbox. Accordingly, even if the applicant did not check his MyGov inbox, he is deemed to have received the notice.
6. As noted above, the authorised review officer affirmed the rejection of the applicant's first claim on 26 July 2024. In accordance with section 147 of the Social Security (Administration) Act, the 13-week timeframe for seeking review was on or before 25 October 2024. The applicant sought first review with the Tribunal on 28 November 2024, more than a month after the 13-week timeframe. As such, even if the applicant was successful in review in relation to the first claim, the date of effect of the decision would be the date of the request for review, which was 28 November 2024.
7. However, the applicant's second claim was granted with effect from 18 October 2024.
8. There is no discretion available to not apply section 147 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth).
9. At the hearing, the applicant stated he had been making a claim for disability support pension since 2017 when he was first injured, and the claims have been continuously rejected. He stated he has been eligible for disability support pension since then. He also got assaulted at work on the 30 July 2023. Those claims would have no relevance to this review application as there is no evidence that they have been internally reviewed or that they have been reviewed by the Tribunal on first review.

1. The applicant cannot obtain a better outcome regarding his first claim for disability support pension claims, even if he was successful in his overall review application. On that basis the application has no reasonable prospects of success and should be dismissed.