Boxall and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

[2018] AATA 676

Boxall and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2018] AATA 676 (28 March 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:           2017/7510

Re:Roger Boxall

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Dr M Evans

Date:28 March 2018

Place:Perth

The Tribunal refuses to grant the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision.  

...[sgd].................................................................

Senior Member Dr M Evans

CATCHWORDS

Extension of time – factors that are relevant when considering an extension of time – length of delay – applicant has arguable case but Tribunal not satisfied extension of time reasonable in all the circumstances - application for extension of time refused

LEGISLATION

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) – s 2B

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – s 25(1), s 29(1)(d), s 29(2), s 29(7), s 33(1)(c)

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)

Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth) – s 3, s 6

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) – s 7(2), s 7(3) s 23, s 1260

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) – s 29(1), s 142(1), s 179(1)

CASES

Brown v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 563

Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 119 ALR 85

Hamilton and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 276

Hickey v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1983) 47 ALR 517

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305

Kim and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 155

Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411

Minister for Health and Aged Care v Pharmacia and Upjohn Pty Ltd (2001) 65 ALD 76

Re Johnson and Commonwealth [1990] AATA 1

Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 23 ALD 309

Rollins and Principal Member of the Veterans’ Review Board and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 113

Seiler and Others v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 48 FCR 83

Zizza v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 848

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member Dr M Evans

28 March 2018

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant made a claim for an aged pension on 23 August 2016. At the time of making the claim he was on board his yacht, an Australian registered vessel, outside of Australian waters.

2. His claim was rejected by Centrelink on the ground that he was not in Australia at the time he lodged it, as required by s 29(1)(b) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (Administration Act). The Tribunal has not been provided with a copy of this decision. However, according to a letter from the Respondent dated 15 February 2017, the date of the rejection of the Applicant’s pension was 20 September 2016.

3. The Applicant sought an internal departmental review of the decision of 20 September 2016. An authorised review officer of the Respondent affirmed the decision (of 20 September 2016) on 15 February 2017.

4. The Applicant then sought review by the Social Services & Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT Tier 1 Review). The AAT Tier 1 Review affirmed the decision of the authorised review officer on 30 June 2017 (the AAT Tier 1 Decision). Notice of this decision was sent to the Applicant by email under cover of a letter dated 12 July 2017.

5. The Applicant seeks an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision.

   THE ISSUE

6. The issue is whether the Tribunal should grant the Applicant an extension of time so he can make an application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, General Division (AAT Tier 2 Review). 

7. The Respondent opposes the extension of time.

   JURISDICTION

8. The jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) is established by s 25(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), which states:

   (1)  An enactment may provide that applications may be made to the Tribunal:

   (a)  for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment; or

   (b)  for the review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

9. In summary, s 25(1) of the AAT Act states that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is given to it by other “enactments”, which grant it jurisdiction to review certain decisions made under those enactments. Section 142(1) of the Administration Act gives the AAT jurisdiction to conduct a Tier 1 Review and s 179(1) of the Administration Act provides that an application may be made to the AAT to conduct a Tier 2 Review.

   MATERIAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

10. The application was heard by the Tribunal on 8 March 2018. The Applicant appeared in person, with his wife for support. The Respondent was represented by Mr Jonathon Tsianikas from the Department of Human Services who appeared by telephone. Oral submissions were made by both parties.

11. The following material was before the Tribunal:

    (a)letter from Centrelink to the Applicant dated 15 February 2017 titled, “Your Review Outcome” (Exhibit R2);

    (b)the Respondent’s Notice of Opposing Application for Extension of Time dated 3 January 2018;

    (c)a statement from the Applicant dated 4 January 2018 in response to the Respondent’s written submission (Exhibit A1);

    (d)Secretary’s Outline of Submissions  dated 18 January 2018 (Exhibit R1);

    (e)a statement from the Applicant under cover of an email dated 4 February 2018 in response to the Secretary’s Outline of Submissions (Exhibit A2); and

    (f)an email from Applicant to the Department dated 23 August 2016 (Exhibit A3).

12. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material, and is satisfied that the parties have been given an adequate opportunity to be heard by the Tribunal, both orally and in writing. 

13. Subsequent to the hearing, the Applicant filed the following further correspondence with the Tribunal, copies of which were forwarded to the Respondent by the Tribunal on 12 March 2018:

    (a)an email from the Applicant to the Tribunal dated 11 March 2018 attaching a 7 page document (the Complaint) with the following reference, “Reference complaint numbers 8030800332 and 8030800278 Reference associated appeal lodged by Andrew, Morley branch of Centrelink 20 January 2018”. This email and the Complaint relate to the Applicant being granted the Aged Pension as a “former resident” following a subsequent claim being made by the Applicant; and

    (b)an email from the Applicant to the Tribunal dated 12 March 2018 attaching a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. In summary, the basis for the complaint, as stated in the complaint form by the Applicant, is that Centrelink has incorrectly recorded that the Applicant lived in Croatia from 1962 to 1995 and that he has unsuccessfully sought to have this information corrected by Centrelink on a number of occasions.

14. With respect to this further correspondence, the Tribunal is not unsympathetic to the situation that the Applicant finds himself in. However, the Tribunal notes that these documents are of limited, if any, relevance to the current extension of time application. There are other avenues through which the Applicant may seek to resolve these complaints, including complaining to the Ombudsman (as the Applicant has done), or seeking to have incorrect information rectified through the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). Any classification of the Applicant as a “former resident” would need to be the subject of a separate complaint to Centrelink by the Applicant.

    RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

    Prescribed Time

15. A person seeking review of a decision must lodge an application with the Tribunal within the prescribed time of 28 days (s 29(1)(d) and s 29(2) of the AAT Act).

    Extension of Time

16. Section 29(7) of the AAT Act provides that:

    The Tribunal may, upon application in writing by a person, extend the time for the making by that person of an application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision (including a decision made before the commencement of this section) if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.

17. Section 29(7) of the AAT Act does not set out any principles which the Tribunal can refer to in order to be “satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances” to extend the time for making an application.  However, relevant principles which the Tribunal may apply in assessing whether it is reasonable to grant an extension of time have been judicially considered.   

18. A frequently cited authority is Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305 (Hunter Valley), in which the Federal Court considered whether to grant an extension of time to allow the applicants to bring an application for judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJRA). In Hunter Valley, Wilcox J (at 310-311) set out principles that were intended to be “non-exhaustive guidelines” (see Brown v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 563 per Hill J at [32]-[34]) which may be relevant when considering whether to grant an extension of time. As stated by Wilcox J (at 310), the principles were intended “… to guide, not in any exhaustive manner, the exercise of the court's discretion.”

19. These principles are substantially similar to those applied in decisions concerning s 29(2) of the AAT Act such as Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation (1991) 23 ALD 309 where President O’Connor J applied the following principles considered by Deputy President Todd in Re Johnson and Commonwealth [1990] AATA 1 at [17]:

    (a)  Prima facie proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period will not be entertained. An extension of time will be granted, however, if it is proper to do so.

    (b)  It is relevant whether the applicant rested on his rights or took action to make the decision maker aware that the decision was being contested.

    (c)  Any prejudice to the respondent that would be caused by granting the extension of time is relevant.

    (d)  Any wider prejudice to the general public in terms of disruption to established practices is relevant.

    (e)  The merits of the substantial application are relevant.

    (f)    Fairness of granting the extension of time as between the applicant and other persons in a like position is relevant.

    The balancing of these factors will depend on the individual case.

20. Some flexibility is permitted in applying the principles, as indicated by the above statement that “[t]he balancing of these factors will depend on the individual case”. Thus the facts and circumstances of a particular case may warrant particular attention being given to one or more of the principles over others, some of which may be less relevant, or not relevant at all. In Zizza v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 848 the Full Court of the Federal Court, when discussing the principles set out by Wilcox J in Hunter Valley, observed (at [13]) that: “It would be an error to regard the summary as complete, or to treat each of the six principles it contains as necessarily applicable to any particular application for extension of time, especially an application under different legislation”.

21. Additionally, whether an applicant has an acceptable explanation for the delay will be relevant, but “… there is no rule that such an explanation is an essential pre-condition” to the success of the application for an extension of time (Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 119 ALR 85 at 88).

    CONSIDERATION

    Length of delay

22. In accordance with s 29(1)(d) and s 29(2) of the AAT Act, the Applicant was required to lodge his application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision within 28 days from the date of receipt of the AAT Tier 1 Decision (12 July 2017), being 10 August 2017.

23. The Applicant’s application for an extension of time was lodged with the Tribunal on 20 December 2017.  This is a delay of 132 days. 

24. The Tribunal notes the following statement of French J (as he then was) in Seiler and Others v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 48 FCR 83 (at 96). His Honour stated the following in the context of an extension of time application for review under the ADJRA:

    The exercise of the discretion to extend time… must be informed by the purposes served by the statutory limitation and associated dispensing power. The limitation is directed to achieving certainty and finality in administrative decision-making. In the ordinary course, where a reviewable decision is taken, and the review procedure is not instituted within the prescribed period, the decision-maker is entitled to proceed on the basis that the decision stands and will not be called into question by way of judicial review. Finality and certainty are not ends in themselves, but means to the end of efficient administration.

25. The length of the delay of 132 days is significant, and to grant an extension after such a time may be inconsistent with certainty and finality in administrative decision making. This weighs against the Tribunal exercising its discretion to grant an extension of time.

    Explanation for the delay

26. The Applicant has regularly travelled overseas since October 2005, and spent considerable periods of time outside of Australia travelling on his yacht. Exhibit R2 quoted records from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection which indicate that between October 2005 and February 2017, the Applicant spent 3888 days outside of Australia and 251 days in Australia.

27. At the time the Applicant received the AAT Tier 1 Decision on 12 July 2017, the Applicant stated that he was outside Australia sailing near “remote islands of the South Pacific region” with very limited or no internet access. He did not return to Australia until 2 December 2017 (Exhibit A2).

28. The Applicant provided the following explanation for the delay in making an application for an AAT Tier 2 Review (Exhibit A2):

    … limited communication in general and that I considered that would not [sic] be able to pay the services of a lawyer. Sailing a small Australian registered vessel in some of the most isolated parts of the World does mean that communication is severely limited. In many locations there is no phone or internet service. Where an internet connection can be found, it is often either unreliable or so slow as to be limited to a few emails and narrow bandwidth weather forecasts, the latter being of highest priority for a vessel captain. It wasn’t until I arrived in Perth and spoke to some people about how badly I’d been treated in relation to my Age Pension claim that I became aware that I may be able to get legal aid. Indeed it wasn’t until I spoke to the Welfare Rights and Advocacy Service (initially on another issue I had with the DHS) that I became aware of the possibility of still applying for a second review, after applying for an extension of time.

29. In the Tribunal’s opinion, and notwithstanding the communication issues described by the Applicant, a delay due to travel is not an adequate reason to grant an extension of time.

    Awareness of Appeal Rights

30. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of a letter from the Social Services & Child Support Division of the AAT to the Applicant dated 12 July 2017 titled, “Notice of AAT’s Decision”, stated:

    You may apply to the AAT for second review of the decision. Information about how to apply is available at or by calling us on 1800 228 333.

    There are time limits for making an application for review (28 days after giving of the document setting out the terms of the AAT’s decision).

31. The Applicant also stated that he was aware of the statutory time limit (Exhibit A2):

    Yes, I had understood that I was too late to apply for a second review but did not know that it was possible to apply for an extension of time, especially given the circumstances and physical location during the intervening time.

32. The Applicant also gave evidence at the hearing, and in a written statement that he was under the misapprehension that he required a lawyer to undertake a Tier 2 Review. The Applicant stated (in Exhibit A1):

    I have been sailing on an Australian registered vessel, Sailing Yacht Ednbal, with very limited access to internet let alone to lawyers. I was told that to request a second AAT review would necessitate the services of a lawyer. My financial position as well as my limited communications essentially precluded this…Without access to lawyers and very limited communication I had little option to do anything about it.

33. The Applicant further stated (Exhibit A1):

    I understood that I must engage the services of a lawyer to appeal the decision of the AAT to uphold that of Department of Human Resources. I contacted Legal Aid in Perth by phone and explained my dilemma to be told that they were unable to help and that I should call the AAT as there was free legal advice available there. I called the AAT, as I mentioned in my original request for extension of time, and was told that I could not get any legal advice or assistance until I submitted a request for time extension and another review, which I did the same day. It now seems to be catch 22, I cannot get any legal assistance without time extension but I am being hindered in my attempt to get time extension.

34. The misapprehension about the need for legal representation for an AAT Tier 2 Review appears to have originated from a telephone conversation the Applicant stated he had with a Departmental Officer on 19 January 2017 (Exhibit A2). The Applicant’s recollection of this conversation was as follows:

    … he explained the review/appeal process, first an appeal to the DHS (I use DHS to encompass the Department of Social Services, Centrelink and whomever else is associated) that would be undertaken by an officer not previously involved with my case. If the original decision was upheld, I then could appeal via the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). If that appeal had the same result then the last option was a second appeal to the AAT that would require lawyer involvement.

35. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s recollection of the telephone conversation is hearsay evidence because the Applicant is recalling a conversation with a third party. The Tribunal is not bound by rules of evidence but may inform itself on such evidence in a manner it thinks appropriate (s 33(1)(c) AAT Act).

36. The Tribunal is sympathetic that the Applicant may have been given unclear information about the need for legal representation in an AAT Tier 2 Review. The Applicant is a layperson who gave evidence at the hearing that he did not know about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal before applying for the AAT Tier 1 Review. It is certainly plausible that he was under a misapprehension about requiring legal representation, which may have contributed to the delay and which may weigh in favour of granting an extension of time.

37. On the other hand, the Applicant was aware of his appeal rights. He gave evidence at the hearing that he accepted that he had missed the statutory time period until he became aware that it was possible to seek an extension of time. He did not otherwise take action before the expiry of the statutory period to make the Department aware that the AAT Tier 1 Decision was being contested. This weighs against the Tribunal exercising its discretion to grant the extension of time.

    Prejudice to the Respondent or the General Public

38. The Respondent has conceded that, other than having to respond to the Applicant’s application for an extension of time and the associated costs of such a response, the Respondent would not be prejudiced by the extension of time being granted. However, the absence of prejudice is not itself enough to justify the granting of an extension (Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411 at 416; Hickey v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1983) 47 ALR 517 at 523 cited in Hunter Valley at 311).

1. As noted by Deputy President Todd in Re Johnson and Commonwealth [1990] AATA 1 at [17] (see paragraph 19 above), any wider prejudice to the general public in terms of disruption to established practices is also a relevant consideration for the Tribunal in considering whether or not to grant an extension of time. The Tribunal further notes an objective of the AAT Act is to “promote public trust and confidence in the decision-making of the Tribunal” (s 2A(d) of the AAT Act). If lengthy extensions are granted by the Tribunal, this confidence may be undermined. Fairness as between the Applicant and other persons in a like position is also relevant. Applicants have previously been denied review by the Tribunal, and others may not have sought review at all because the statutory time limit has passed.

2. In addition, a further objective of the Tribunal is to provide a mechanism of review that is “fair, just, economical, informal and quick” (s 2A(b) of the AAT Act). The 28 day time period set out in s 29(2) of the AAT Act is consistent with the achievement of that objective. However, in this case the delay is 132 days, which is, in the Tribunal’s opinion, considerable and inconsistent with that objective. These factors weigh against the granting of the extension of time.

   Merits of the substantial application

3. As noted above, when deciding whether to grant an extension of time to an applicant, the Tribunal may consider the merits of the applicant’s substantial application. The Tribunal should not, however, undertake a substantial review of the merits of the application (Minister for Health and Aged Care v Pharmacia and Upjohn Pty Ltd (2001) 65 ALD 76), but rather should assess whether the applicant has an arguable case (Brown v Commissioner of Taxation [1999] FCA 563 at [56]).

4. The Tribunal has previously declined to grant an extension of time to an applicant in cases where it considers the applicant would have little prospect of success at a substantive hearing of the matter (see, for example, Rollins and Principal Member of the Veterans’ Review Board and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 113 and Hamilton and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2011] AATA 276).

5. The Respondent contends that “the Applicant’s substantive application is not reasonably arguable” (Exhibit R1, para 38). This is because at the time he made the claim, on 23 August 2016, the Applicant was outside of Australian territorial waters. Section 29 (1) of the Administration Act provides that:

   (1)Subject to sections 30, 30A, 31, 31A and 32, a claim for a social security payment or a concession card may only be made by a person who:

   (a)is an Australian resident; and

   (b)is in Australia.

   (2)Subject to sections 30, 30A, 31, 31A and 32, a claim made at a time when the claimant is not an Australian resident or is not in Australia is taken not to have been made.

6. In summary, the Applicant argues that because he was on an Australian Registered vessel which was subject to Australian law, he should be deemed to be in Australia. The Applicant stated (in Exhibit A1):

   While on board the Australian registered vessel, SY Ednbal, I am “at all times” within the jurisdiction of Australia, subject to the domestic laws of Australia and therefore “in Australia”.

7. The Applicant further stated (in Exhibit A2):

   … since I was on board the Australian registered vessel Ednbal when I made the first part of my Age Pension application online I was on board a vessel that is part of Australia, subject to the domestic laws of Australia. As I understand it Age Pension comes under one of the domestic laws of Australia. If, when on board, I am, at all time, subject to the domestic laws of Australia I must therefore be regarded as being in Australia. Further more [sic] I contend that filling in the on line [sic] Age Pension application is merely the part of making an Age Pension claim. I was required to provide proof of identity in person at a Centrelink office and I understood that was all part of making my Age Pension claim. When I did this on 2 September 2017 with the Morley Centrelink officer Stef, she was fully aware that I had just flown into Perth the day before from my yacht left in Tahiti. In fact she was interested in my sailing life style. At no time did she mention anything about any issue with me having filled in my Age Pension claim while on board my yacht. Had she done so I would have submitted another claim right there and then.  If in fact Stef, a qualified Centrelink officer, did not know that it was so critical that an on line [sic] claim only be made while physically on Australian soil then how can The Lawyer [sic] expect a senior Australian citizen such as I to be aware. So, on two counts I submit that I was in Australia, both while being on board an Australian registered vessel while filling out the on line [sic] claim form and when providing the required personal identification.

8. The Applicant also gave evidence at the hearing that he thought the online claim was more of an “intention to claim” and that he then needed to attend Centrelink with his identification documents to finalise the claim.

9. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s legal submissions that reference to being “in Australia” is a reference to geographical location, and that the Applicant must therefore be located in Australia at the time of submitting his claim. Being subject to Australian law on an Australian registered vessel does not mean that a person is physically present in Australia in a geographical sense. This conclusion is supported by a range of legal sources cited by the Respondent in its Outline of Submissions dated 18 January 2018 (Exhibit R1). These include the definition of “Australia” in s 23 and s 1260 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (Social Security Act) and s 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), as well as Australia’s sovereignty over its territorial seas, extending for 12 nautical miles (sections 3 and 6 of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth)).

10. However, the Tribunal notes that under the heading, “Residence rules for Age Pension”, the Centrelink website states, “On the day you claim Age Pension you must be an Australian resident and be in Australia”.[1] The Tribunal further notes that under the heading, “Intent to Claim” a person applying for a pension “can start a claim online”. Thus at a substantive hearing of the matter, it may be arguable, depending on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the Applicant did not submit his claim until he attended the Centrelink office in person to provide his identification documents. It consequently appears to the Tribunal that the Applicant may have an arguable case, that he made his claim in Australia, if the matter proceeds to a substantive hearing.

    [1] Please see website at: >

    The Respondent has also submitted, albeit briefly, in its Outline of Submissions (Exhibit R1) that the Applicant did not meet the residency requirement (ss 7(2) and (3) of the Social Security Act) when he made his claim (Exhibit R1, paras 51 and 52). This was due to the time he had spent outside of Australia (the Applicant only spent 251 days over an 11 year period in Australia). The Tribunal notes that the Applicant is an Australian citizen, his wife’s family resides in Australia, that he has assets in Australia including a family home and other rental properties in Australia. Again, without going into the substantive merits, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant also has an arguable case with respect to whether he is an Australian resident if the matter were to proceed to a substantive hearing.

    Alternative avenues of relief

11. When considering an extension of time application, the Tribunal will often have regard to whether there are any alternative avenues of relief available to an applicant (see, for example, Rollins and Principal Member of the Veterans’ Review Board and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 113 at 18 and Kim and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 155 at 48).

12. The Applicant successfully applied for an aged pension as a former resident in December 2017. However, this is a more limited aged pension because payment may be suspended for any period during which the Applicant leaves Australia. At the hearing, the Applicant expressed his frustration at being classified as a “former resident”. The Applicant could seek further review of his classification as a “former resident” with Centrelink, and is not precluded by the Social Security Act from being able to make a new claim for the aged pension as an Australian resident in the future. The Tribunal does, however, acknowledge that any new claim would commence from the date of the new application, which would deprive the Applicant of any back payment.

    CONCLUSION

13. The Applicant may have an arguable case if the matter proceeds to a substantive hearing and may have received unclear information about the need for legal representation at an AAT Tier 2 hearing. However, in the circumstances of the present case, those factors alone are not enough for the Tribunal to be satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time to allow him to make an application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision. The Tribunal has also taken into account the following considerations, which in the Tribunal’s opinion, weigh against the granting of an extension of time:

    (a)the length of the delay of 132 days, which is substantial;

    (b)the explanation for the delay was difficulty in communication due to travel. The Tribunal does not regard this to be sufficient;

    (c)although the Applicant appeared to be under a misapprehension about the need to engage a lawyer for an AAT Tier 2 review, he was aware of his appeal rights and did not otherwise give any indication to the Respondent of his intention to appeal. He only sought to appeal the AAT Tier 1 Decision when he learnt that it was possible to apply for an extension of time;

    (d)although there is limited prejudice to the Respondent, the Tribunal has taken into account the public interest in having finality and certainty in administrative decision-making,  and fairness to other applicants in a like position who may have been denied relief, or who may not have sought it in the first place due to the statutory time limit; and

    (e)although the Applicant is currently receiving a more limited aged pension (as a former resident) the Applicant can make a new claim for an aged pension in the future.

    DECISION

14. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal refuses to grant the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT Tier 1 Decision.

I certify that the preceding 53 (fifty -three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr M Evans

........[sgd].............................................................

Administrative Assistant - Legal

Dated: 28 March 2018

Date of hearing:	8 March 2018
Applicant:	Self-represented
Representative for the Respondent:	Jonathon Tsianikas
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services