NSW Is Centrelink being Defamatory?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Maria_L

Well-Known Member
3 March 2021
15
0
71
I am on the DSP. I went overseas and had an illness and could not return within the day period. Centrelink lawyer [Personal Information - Redacted by Moderator] rejected all the foreign medical records. Today I got an email that Centrelink advised they have my bank records. [Personal Information - Redacted by Moderator] alleges as there was a transaction on my card at a London pub then i was fit to travel. Well, I used to give my card to my relatives who did do the food shopping and with my consent did sometimes go out to a cafe or a pub. But [Personal Information - Redacted by Moderator] is basically accusing me of Centrelink fraud and just because there is a transaction on my bank card she insists, without any proof, that it must have been me at the pub.
Is the Centrelink lawyer being defamatory in stating to the Admin Appeals Tribunal that I was fit to travel and not unfit to travel, as there was a transaction at the Pub on my visa card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scruff

Well-Known Member
25 July 2018
872
128
2,389
NSW
The person making the statement has reasonable grounds to believe the statement is true, therefore it's not defamation. Defamation can only occur if the person knows or it is reasonable that they ought to have know that their statements are false. In other words, there needs to be intent or recklessness involved. You won't find either here.
 

Maria_L

Well-Known Member
3 March 2021
15
0
71
Hi, what are the reasonable grounds? Couples use each others' cards and people steal cards. Just because there was a transaction, doesn't mean it was me making it, and indeed me at the pub. and further more, the purchases made were alcohol. Ms Roula Allam is implying I am lying, that I was fit to travel based on a card purchase.
 

Scruff

Well-Known Member
25 July 2018
872
128
2,389
NSW
I'm not saying their decision was right or wrong. The fact is they had information and made a decision based on that information. There is nothing to even suggest that anyone is attacking your character.

As a side note, it is against the rules here to name any third party in your posts. Please read the Community Guidelines.
 

Docupedia

Well-Known Member
7 October 2020
221
18
654
You'll also find that there is an immunity from suit for solicitors and barristers against proceedings for defamation arising from statements and claim made in the ordinary course of advocacy work before courts and tribunals.
 

Maria_L

Well-Known Member
3 March 2021
15
0
71
oh, I didn't realise that, however. lawyers are publicly named in the Law Society anyway and their names published when the represent people.
I disagree with you, I am being attacked. I am being labelled a liar, who was drinking alcohol at a pub as she went so far as to get a menu and state that she knows what was purchased in 2019 by looking at the menu price of 2021 and she has put in writing that I was not unfit to travel. She was not there so how can she say from a financial transcation where I was and that I was medically fit and also drinking alcohol. Anyone could have used my card, as long it was with my consent
 

Maria_L

Well-Known Member
3 March 2021
15
0
71
Nope again you are wrong. Old law.
Lailac v Attwells or something similar case, now allows you to sue a lawyer as long as the matter has not been judicially determined.
 

Docupedia

Well-Known Member
7 October 2020
221
18
654
Nope again you are wrong. Old law.
Lailac v Attwells or something similar case, now allows you to sue a lawyer as long as the matter has not been judicially determined.
Again? This is my first post in your thread...

It's not old law. It's still current law. It was clarified in Attwells v Jackson Lalic Lawyers, where the High Court narrowed the scope of the immunity to "conduct of the advocate which contributes to a judicial determination." - not 'as long as the matter has not been judicially determined' as you put it.

Exactly what is comprised in 'contributing to a judicial determination' may be subject to debate - but the High Court did refer to the "role of the advocate engaged, as an officer of the court, in the exercise by the court of judicial power to quell a controversy".

I would suspect that making the allegation in pursuit of the case against you may fit squarely within the realm of contributing to a judicial determination.
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
28 April 2014
4,074
737
2,894
Sydney
Perhaps you have forgotten that it's very common for one of the T&Cs of a card
to be that you don't give it to anyone else to use. *
On that basis, Centrelink is entitled to presume that it was you that used the card.
And in turn, that you do not/ did not meet the residence requirement for the pension.

The onus is on you to show that it was not you.
A notarised affidavit from whichever relative went to the pub might help.
So might video evidence from the person (as long as it's true...)


----------------------------------------------------
* Yes, I know "everybody does", but that won't help you here.
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
7,087
953
2,894
Is the Centrelink lawyer being defamatory in stating to the Admin Appeals Tribunal that I was fit to travel and not unfit to travel, as there was a transaction at the Pub on my visa card.

No. Qualified privilege will be the lawyer's likely defence. I'd be backing the lawyer. not you if you started a case for defamation.