Bird and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Mr Bird applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support objection decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 23 March 2018. The original decision had altered the child support assessment for Mr Bird based on his income, property, financial resources, and the special needs of one of his children. Mr Bird had objected to this decision, and the Registrar's subsequent objection decision reduced his adjusted taxable income to $49,200 per annum, finding no ground for the special needs of the child. Mr Bird lodged his application for an extension of time on 15 May 2019, approximately 390 days after the objection decision was notified.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Mr Bird's application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the child support objection decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which prescribe a 28-day period for lodging an application for review. The Tribunal was required to exercise its discretion under section 91 of the Act to grant or refuse the extension application, guided by principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*.

In determining whether to grant the extension, the AAT considered several factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, potential prejudice to the other party and the public, and fairness to other applicants. The Tribunal found that Mr Bird had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay, noting that he was aware of his appeal rights at the time of the objection decision and had not demonstrated why he could not have filed his tax return and sought review sooner. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Mr Bird's substantive application and concluded it had little prospect of success, as the Child Support Agency's approach to assessing his income, including personal benefits derived from his business, was considered reasonable. The Tribunal also found that granting an extension would cause prejudice to Ms Bird, who could reasonably expect the objection decision to be final, and to the general public interest in the timely administration of government decisions.

Weighing all these factors, the AAT determined that it was not proper to grant an extension of time. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to seek review of the child support objection decision was refused.