Davidson and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Mr Davidson applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, made on 5 September 2017, was to refuse Mr Davidson an extension of time to object to a child support assessment made in 2014. Mr Davidson lodged his application for review with the AAT on 17 May 2018, well outside the prescribed 28-day period for lodging such an application.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Davidson an extension of time to apply for a review of the Registrar's decision. This involved considering whether Mr Davidson had provided an adequate explanation for the significant delay in lodging his application and whether there was any reasonable prospect that the AAT would ultimately set aside the Registrar's decision. The AAT noted that while the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 did not provide specific guidance on how to determine extension applications, general case law indicated that relevant factors included the reasons for delay and the merits of the case.

The Tribunal reasoned that a presumption exists against allowing applications lodged out of time, and that the power to extend time should not frustrate the purpose of statutory time limits. Mr Davidson's explanation for the delay centred on the stress and impact of parenting order proceedings, which he claimed affected his mental state. However, the AAT found this explanation inadequate, particularly as the parenting proceedings concluded in December 2017, well after the original deadline for his application. Furthermore, the AAT considered the merits of Mr Davidson's underlying objection. The decision he sought to challenge was the Registrar's refusal to grant an extension to object to a 2014 assessment. The AAT noted that Mr Davidson had not objected to the 2014 assessment within the prescribed 28 days, and his reasons for the delay in objecting were based on changed circumstances rather than a disagreement with the original decision. The AAT concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that a review would set aside the Registrar's refusal.

Consequently, the AAT declined to grant Mr Davidson's application for an extension of time.