Ehrlichmann and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 2161

Ehrlichmann and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2161 (8 September 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Ehrlichmann

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Tribunal Number: 2025/MC030153
Tribunal: General Member M King
Place:Brisbane
Date:8 September 2025

Application: An extension application made on 16 July 2025 asking the Tribunal to consider the application for a first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar, made on 26 March 2025, despite the period for applying for review having ended.
Decision: The extension application is refused

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – fixed annual rate of child support – rested on his review rights – no obvious merit – extension of time refused

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Mr Ehrlichmann and Ms [A] are parties to a child support case.
Mr Ehrlichmann was assessed to pay the fixed annual rate (FAR) of child support for each of his children, [Children A and B], for the child support period 1 September 2024 to 30 November 2025. That resulted in an annual rate of child support of $3,440.
On 3 October 2024, Mr Ehrlichmann applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for the FAR not to apply.
On 4 October 2024, Child Support refused Mr Ehrlichmann’s application.
Mr Ehrlichmann objected to that decision. On 14 March 2025, a Child Support objections officer disallowed the objection.
On 16 July 2025, Mr Ehrlichmann applied to the Tribunal seeking a review of Child Support’s decision.

CONSIDERATION

By his application received on 16 July 2025, Mr Ehrlichmann applies for an extension of time within which to seek a Tribunal review of the decision dated 14 March 2025.
In considering this matter, the Tribunal has had regard to Mr Ehrlichmann’s application for an extension of time, material provided by Child Support, and the evidence given by Mr Ehrlichmann to the Tribunal during a telephone call on 5 September 2025.
Section 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and Rule 5 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Rules 2024 provide that an application must be made to the Tribunal within 28 days of the person being given a copy of the decision. Mr Ehrlichmann did not do this.
The general starting position for extension of time applications is that proceedings commenced outside a statutory period will not be entertained (Lucic v Nolan [1982] 45 ALR 411 at 416). However, the primary concern “is to do that which will enable justice to be done between the parties” (see, for example, Martinsen v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2004] FCA 297 per Spender J). In Hunter Valley Developments P/L v Cohen [1984] 3 FCR 344, the Federal Court summarised the conditions to be considered before an extension of time will be granted, namely that:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ehrlichmann and Child Support Registrar (Child support) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] ARTA 2161
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ehrlichmann and the Child Support Registrar [2025] ARTA 2161 was heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 5 September 2025. Mr Ehrlichmann sought an extension of time to apply for a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 14 March 2025, disallowing his objection to a child support assessment. The Tribunal considered Mr Ehrlichmann's application for an extension of time, material provided by Child Support, and evidence given by Mr Ehrlichmann during a telephone call on 5 September 2025.

The primary legal issue was whether an extension of time should be granted under section 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and Rule 5 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Rules 2024. The conditions for granting an extension of time include an acceptable explanation for the delay and fairness and equity between the parties. The Tribunal had to assess the merits of the substantive application, including whether it had obvious merit, and the prejudice to the other party.

The Tribunal found that Mr Ehrlichmann had rested on his review rights after being advised of the objection decision. He had not sought to dispute that decision until he was notified of deductions from his bank account to pay child support arrears. Although the Tribunal could not say that Mr Ehrlichmann's substantive application had no merit, it did not have obvious merit. The Tribunal concluded that the interests of justice favoured not granting an extension of time. Therefore, Mr Ehrlichmann's application for an extension of time was refused.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the finding that Mr Ehrlichmann had rested on his review rights and that his substantive application did not have obvious merit. The Tribunal also considered the potential prejudice to Ms [A], finding that it would not be undue. The Tribunal's final order was that the extension application is refused.

Orders