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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Farah for an extension of time to seek a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Department of Human Services (Centrelink) denying his entitlement to a disability support pension (DSP). The initial claim for DSP was lodged on 14 October 2016 and rejected on 25 November 2016, a decision affirmed on review by an Authorised Review Officer on 14 February 2017. Mr Farah subsequently applied for a first review by the AAT, which affirmed the Department's decision on 5 June 2017. The application for which an extension of time was sought related to a second review of this AAT decision.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Farah had provided an adequate explanation for the delay in lodging his application for a second review, and whether the prospects of success of the substantive application warranted granting an extension of time. The Tribunal was required to consider the relevance of Mr Farah's IT qualifications and previous experience with AAT procedures, as well as the explicit advice regarding time limits provided in correspondence from the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess whether Mr Farah met the criteria for a DSP under the Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999, specifically the requirement of being "severely disabled" and "totally unable to work".

The Tribunal found that Mr Farah had not provided an adequate explanation for failing to lodge his application within the prescribed 28-day time limit. It noted that his claim of being unable to open email attachments was not raised as a reason for the delay in his application, that he had IT qualifications, and that he had made no effort to contact the Tribunal when he encountered difficulties. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Tribunal's letter clearly stated the time limit for lodging an application. Regarding the prospects of success, the Tribunal noted that Mr Farah's residence status had not changed and did not satisfy the residency requirements under the Social Security Act 1991. While he remained eligible to apply under the International Agreements Act and had a physical impairment, the core issue was whether he was "severely disabled" and "totally unable to work" as defined by the Agreement. Given the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay and the limited prospects of success on the substantive application, the Tribunal dismissed the application for an extension of time.