Bourne and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Bourne for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, dated 18 September 2019, disallowed Ms Bourne's objection to an earlier decision that accepted the other parent could be credited with non-agency payments (NAPs) in respect of school fees. Ms Bourne received the objection decision in October 2019 but did not lodge her application for AAT first review until 23 August 2020, well outside the statutory 28-day time limit.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Ms Bourne an extension of time to apply for review. In considering this application, the Tribunal had to assess the explanation for the delay, the merits of the substantial application, any prejudice to the other party, and relevant public interest considerations. The Tribunal noted that while the primary concern in such applications is to ensure justice is done between the parties, there is a prima facie rule against entertaining proceedings commenced outside statutory periods.

The Tribunal reasoned that a satisfactory explanation for the delay is ordinarily required for an extension to be granted, with circumstances beyond a person's control being viewed favourably. In this instance, Ms Bourne provided no specific reasons for the lengthy delay, effectively resting on her rights without explaining why she did not exercise her right to apply for review within the prescribed period. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the substantive application had no prospects of success, as the evidence indicated the other parent had made payments in accordance with the child support agreement that were correctly credited as NAPs. The Tribunal also considered the potential prejudice to the other party who had relied on the objection decision and the public interest in timely reviews and certainty in child support matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Ms Bourne's application for an extension of time. The refusal was based on the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the very lengthy delay and the lack of merit in the underlying application, leading the Tribunal to conclude that the interests of justice required the refusal of the extension application.