Carlyle and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Carlyle for an extension of time to lodge an objection against a child support assessment decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The application was heard by a Tribunal, presided over by Y Webb M.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Carlyle an extension of time to object to the child support assessment, given that his objection was lodged significantly outside the prescribed 28-day period. This required the Tribunal to consider the established legal principles governing such applications, including the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to other parties, public interest considerations, and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal applied the principles from *Hunter Valley Developments P/L v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* and subsequent case law, which establish a prima facie rule against entertaining proceedings commenced outside the statutory period. The Tribunal found that Mr Carlyle had received the decision letter dated 7 August 2014, as evidenced by his telephone call to the Child Support Agency on 26 August 2014 inquiring about the assessment. Despite Mr Carlyle's assertion that his health and mental state prevented him from lodging an objection earlier, the Tribunal was not persuaded that his condition, even considering his depression and diabetes, rendered him unable to lodge an objection within the required timeframe, particularly as he was working and earning income at the time of the decision. The objection was lodged approximately 1,104 days after the expiry of the 28-day period.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the extension of time, finding no reasonable excuse for the significant delay and no merit in the application.