Coney and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Coney for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by Comcare. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether it should exercise its discretion under section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to grant this extension, with Comcare opposing the application.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for Ms Coney to make her application for review. In considering this, the Tribunal was guided by established principles for determining such applications, which include the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, whether the applicant rested on their rights, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, the merits of the substantive application, and the fairness of granting the extension.

The Tribunal noted that the time limit for seeking review under section 65(4) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) expired on 22 January 2018, and Ms Coney's application for an extension was lodged on 19 April 2018, representing a delay of over 80 days. The Tribunal considered this significant delay to be inconsistent with the principles of certainty and finality in administrative decision-making. Ms Coney’s explanation for the delay centred on financial constraints and advice from her lawyer regarding the potential costs of medical assessments, which had initially dissuaded her from pursuing the review. However, she indicated a renewed intention to proceed after her lawyer raised the matter again. The Tribunal found that Ms Coney had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay and had, in effect, rested on her rights.

The Tribunal concluded that, in light of the significant delay, the lack of a satisfactory explanation, and the applicant having rested on her rights, it was not reasonable to grant an extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.