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

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed Services Australia's decision to cancel the applicant's JobSeeker payments. The cancellation was based on the applicant's assets exceeding the allowable limit under the *Social Services Act 1991* (Cth). The applicant lodged her application for a second review of the AAT's decision and an application for an extension of time to do so, 17 days out of time.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge her application for review under section 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (AAT Act). This required the court to be satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant such an extension, particularly as the respondent objected to the extension. The applicant contended that COVID-19 community restrictions prevented her from accessing public internet facilities, which in turn hindered her ability to lodge her application within the prescribed 28-day period.

The court considered the applicant's submission that she lacked personal internet access and was unable to use public facilities due to COVID-19 restrictions. However, the court noted that the applicant had received the Tribunal's reasons for decision on 15 July 2021, and the statement of reasons was deemed received on 26 July 2021. The applicant contacted the Tribunal on 24 August 2021, requesting forms, which were sent by express post on the same day. The applicant then lodged her application for review and extension of time on 9 September 2021. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of her appeal, nor had she provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging her application, particularly given the time elapsed between receiving the reasons for decision and her initial contact with the Tribunal.

The application for an extension of time was refused.