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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time by the Applicant, Ms. Chouman, to seek a review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute arose from the cancellation of Ms. Chouman's carer payment due to her cessation of care beyond an allowable period, and a subsequent debt arising from an error in payment. The application for review and the extension of time application were lodged with the Tribunal on 24 March 2020, which the Tribunal determined was 15 days out of time.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time for Ms. Chouman to lodge her application for review. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider established principles for granting extensions, including whether there was an acceptable explanation for the delay, whether the Respondent would be prejudiced by the delay, whether the Applicant had rested on her rights, and the overall fairness to the Applicant and others in similar situations, as well as the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal also had to consider the presumption of receipt of postal articles under section 160 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) to establish the relevant timeline for the delay.

The Tribunal reasoned that limitation periods are important for several public interest reasons, including the preservation of evidence, the avoidance of oppression to defendants, the ability of individuals to arrange their affairs, and the prompt settlement of disputes, as articulated by McHugh J in *Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor*. Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for the Applicant to make her application for review.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time.