Costin and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mrs Costin for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 17 September 2020. The Registrar's decision concerned the interpretation of a binding child support agreement, specifically whether the father was liable for both periodic and non-periodic payments, with the Registrar determining he was not liable for periodic payments. Mrs Costin sought to have this decision reviewed by the AAT, but her application was filed significantly outside the statutory 28-day time limit.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mrs Costin an extension of time to lodge her application for review. In considering this, the Tribunal had to assess the explanation provided for the delay, the merits of the substantive application for review, any prejudice to the other party, and relevant public interest considerations. The established legal principle is that while statutory time limits are generally upheld, extensions may be granted to ensure justice is done between the parties, requiring a holistic consideration of the circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Mrs Costin had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay in lodging her application. Her assertion that a recent failure by the father to pay school fees in January 2021 would have prompted her to object earlier was not considered a reasonable explanation for her failure to act within the initial 28-day period. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Mrs Costin's substantive application had no prospect of success, as it appeared the Child Support Registrar had correctly interpreted the binding agreement, which clearly provided for the father's periodic liability to be discharged by non-periodic payments. The Tribunal also noted that the father's alleged failure to pay school fees was a separate matter, potentially addressable under different clauses of the agreement or through other legal avenues, and that the Child Support Registrar does not recover non-periodic payments.

Consequently, the AAT refused Mrs Costin's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal reasoned that granting an extension would serve no purpose given the lack of merit in the substantive application and the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also considered the prejudice to the other party and the public interest in the timely finalisation of child support matters, concluding that the interests of justice required the refusal of the extension application.