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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by an authorised review officer of the Department of Human Services on 20 September 2018. The applicant sought to extend the time to lodge an application for review, which was approximately 185 days out of time. The Secretary, Department of Human Services, opposed the application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether to grant an extension of time under s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). In determining this, the Tribunal was guided by principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited & Ors v The Hon Barry Cohen*, which include the prima facie rule against entertaining proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period, the relevance of actions taken by the applicant other than making an application for review, any prejudice to the respondent, public considerations, the merits of the substantive application, and considerations of fairness. The Tribunal also considered the principles from *Zizza v Federal Commissioner of Taxation*, which require weighing all relevant factors.

The Tribunal considered the significant length of the delay (185 days) as weighing against granting an extension. It also noted the applicant's prior awareness of appeal rights, evidenced by an earlier application lodged within the time limit, and found the explanation for the delay, relating to confusion over application fees, to be uncompelling. The Tribunal found that the applicant had been advised of the fee requirement and that avenues for fee reduction due to financial hardship were available. The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case did not support exercising its discretion to grant the extension.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the Department's decision.