Escott and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Escott for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support decision made by the Child Support Registrar. Mr Escott and Ms A are the parents of two children, and Mr Escott is the liable parent for child support payments. The dispute arose from a decision by the Child Support Agency to adjust Mr Escott's taxable income to reflect his income, property, and financial resources, which was subsequently modified following Mr Escott's objection.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Escott's request for an extension of time to apply for a first review of the Child Support Registrar's objection decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the statutory provisions governing applications for review and extensions of time, specifically Part VIIA Division 2 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and section 29(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which prescribe a 28-day period for lodging an application for review.

In determining whether to grant the extension, the Tribunal applied the guiding principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 186, which require the Tribunal to be satisfied that it is proper to grant an extension. The Tribunal considered several factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, potential prejudice to the other party and the public, and fairness. The Tribunal found Mr Escott's explanation for the delay, citing focus on his children during the Christmas period, to be unreasonable, noting that he had been reminded of his appeal rights on multiple occasions. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Mr Escott's substantive application and concluded it had little prospect of success, as the Child Support Agency's assessment of his financial resources from his business appeared reasonable and conservative.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Escott had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, had rested on his rights, and that his application lacked merit. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal determined it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused Mr Escott's application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision.