Ethington and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an objection to a child support assessment decision. The applicant, Ms Ethington, sought to object to a decision made by Services Australia – Child Support on 6 July 2010, which registered a child support assessment from 10 June 2010. Ms Ethington lodged her objection and requested an extension of time on 25 April 2021, which was subsequently refused by the Child Support Registrar. Ms Ethington then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of that refusal.

The AAT was required to determine whether Ms Ethington's objection was lodged outside the statutory time frame and, if so, whether she should be granted an extension of time to object to the 6 July 2010 decision. The relevant legislation, the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, stipulates that objections must generally be lodged within 28 days of receiving notice of the decision. However, section 82 of the Act allows for an application to have an objection treated as if it were lodged within the allowed time, with the Registrar then considering whether to grant or refuse this application under section 83.

In reaching its decision, the AAT applied the guiding principles for exercising discretion to allow an extension of time, as established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 176. These principles require a balancing of various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, any prejudice to the other party, and the overall fairness and propriety of granting the extension. The tribunal found that Ms Ethington had adequate reasons for the delay, having made numerous attempts to raise issues with Child Support between 2010 and 2021, and that she did not rest on her rights. Furthermore, the tribunal was satisfied that her objection had arguable merit, particularly concerning the registration of arrears under a foreign court order, and that granting the extension would not cause significant prejudice to the father, given his existing substantial arrears.

Consequently, the AAT set aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decided that Ms Ethington should be granted an extension of time to lodge her objection to the 6 July 2010 decision.