Felangan and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Felangan to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, made on 5 February 2024, amended the date of a change in care arrangements for two children to 24 June 2023 and determined that this amended decision would be reflected in the child support assessment from 4 October 2023, the date Mr Felangan lodged his objection. Mr Felangan sought to review this "date of effect" decision, but his application to the AAT was lodged on 5 April 2024, more than 28 days after the Registrar's decision.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Mr Felangan an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This required the Tribunal to consider the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, specifically sections 29, 91, and 92 of the former, and sections 87AA and 91 of the latter, which govern the time limits for lodging review applications and the process for seeking an extension. The Tribunal was required to balance various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, prejudice to other parties, and the overall propriety of granting an extension.

In reaching its decision, the AAT applied the principles established in cases such as *Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor* and *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, which outline the factors to be considered when exercising discretion to grant an extension of time. The Tribunal found that Mr Felangan's stated reasons for delay, primarily his demanding work schedule and a cursory reading of the decision letter, did not constitute adequate justification for the 31-day delay. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Felangan had not rested on his rights, noting that he had not provided satisfactory reasons for his failure to lodge the application within the prescribed period. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no apparent merit to Mr Felangan's substantive application, observing that his interpretation of the decision regarding the suspension of the assessment did not align with the clear impact on his child support liability. The Tribunal also considered the potential prejudice to the other party, Ms A, and the wider public interest in the finality of administrative decisions.

Ultimately, the AAT refused Mr Felangan's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal concluded that, weighing all relevant factors including the lack of adequate reasons for delay, the absence of apparent merit in the substantive application, and the potential prejudice to Ms A and the public interest, it would not be proper or equitable to grant the extension.