Clinton and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Clinton for an extension of time to object to two child support decisions made by the Child Support Registrar. The first decision, dated 11 October 2016, accepted an updated income of $55,000 for the 2015/2016 period. The second decision, dated 27 September 2017, reconciled Mr Clinton's estimated income for 2016/2017, resulting in additional child support payable. Mr Clinton acknowledged receiving the letter regarding the first decision, which also informed him of his objection rights. He could not recall receiving the letter for the second decision, though he confirmed his address had not changed and he was receiving other correspondence.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether to grant Mr Clinton an extension of time to object to these decisions, and if so, on what basis. The Tribunal was required to consider the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and subsequent cases, which dictate that the prescribed 28-day objection period is significant and that extensions should only be granted if the applicant is positively satisfied that it is proper to do so. This involves balancing several factors, including the explanation for the delay, actions taken to notify the respondent of dissatisfaction, prejudice to other parties, public interest issues, and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal noted that Mr Clinton's explanation for the delay in objecting to both decisions was that he felt overwhelmed by the entire process, including ongoing Family Court proceedings and his unfamiliarity with child support procedures. He believed he could simply inform the Child Support Agency of his dire financial situation, including business debt and liquidation, and that this would be taken into account. While Mr Clinton confirmed receiving the notification for the first decision, he did not object within the 28-day period. For the second decision, he claimed not to recall receiving the notification but did not dispute that it would have been sent to his correct address. The Tribunal considered these explanations in light of the established legal principles for granting extensions of time.