Brigham and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

The applicant, Brigham, sought an extension of time to object to a child support assessment made by the Child Support Registrar. The dispute concerned the Registrar's refusal to grant this extension. The matter was heard by J Thomson M.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar's decision to refuse the extension of time to object was reviewable and, if so, whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the granting of such an extension. This involved considering whether the applicant had acted with due diligence and whether there was merit in the substantive objection they wished to pursue.

J Thomson M affirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the applicant had not acted with sufficient diligence in pursuing their objection. The court noted that the applicant had not rested on their rights and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the objection. Furthermore, the court found that there was no merit to the substantive issue the applicant wished to raise in their objection. The legal principle applied was that extensions of time are not granted as a matter of course and require a demonstration of both diligence and a meritorious substantive case.

The court ordered that the Registrar's decision be affirmed, meaning the applicant's request for an extension of time to object was refused.