FDNR and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). The applicant sought to extend the time to appeal a decision of the SSAT, which had been made on 7 September 2019. The applicant applied for review by the SSAT on 8 July 2022, representing a delay of 916 days beyond the usual 28-day period. The application was heard by A Poljak SM.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in lodging the application for review, the applicant's prospects of success in the substantive application should an extension be granted, and whether the applicant had explored alternative avenues of relief. The Tribunal was required to consider these factors in determining whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's submission that he suffered from a medical condition that impacted his ability to function. However, the evidence provided focused on the applicant's condition in 2019 and did not specifically detail how it prevented him from making the application within the prescribed timeframes, particularly given his continued ability to operate his business and participate in other legal proceedings. The Tribunal also noted the applicant's claim that he was advised he could not act for three years, a claim unsupported by any record. Furthermore, the Tribunal formed a preliminary view that the applicant's prospects of success in setting aside the SSAT's refusal decision were not strong, given the substantial delay and lack of a compelling explanation. The applicant had also engaged in other avenues of relief, including submitting a second change of assessment and participating in further merits review.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, nor that his prospects of success were strong enough to justify the extensive delay. Accordingly, the Tribunal found it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time, and the application was refused.