Barton and K and S Freighters Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Barton for review of a decision made by K & S Freighters Pty Ltd (K & S) not to grant him a further period to request reconsideration of a determination made on 28 April 2015. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether K & S's decision was reviewable and, if so, to exercise the discretion conferred by section 62(3)(b) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act).

The primary legal issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review K & S's decision to refuse an extension of time for Mr Barton to request reconsideration, and if so, how that discretion should be exercised. The Tribunal considered that the decision not to grant a further period fell within the definition of a "reviewable decision" under section 60(1) of the SRC Act, making it susceptible to review by the Tribunal, consistent with the Federal Court's decision in *Comcare v Willems*. The Tribunal also had to determine the principles guiding the exercise of the discretion to extend statutory time limits, drawing on common law principles developed by the courts.

The Tribunal reasoned that on a merits review, it could exercise all the powers and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker, including the discretion under section 62(3)(b) of the SRC Act. It was guided by the principles established in *Comcare v Willems*, which emphasised that decisions regarding extensions of time should be made in context, considering the content of the request, the need for reasons, and acting without regard to technicalities. The Tribunal noted that the discretion was not limited to the question of delay but extended to aspects of fairness and equity, as articulated in *Maric v Comcare*. The Tribunal affirmed that a decision in relation to an extension of time is a reviewable decision.