Florey and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for an extension of time made by Mr Florey, who sought to have the AAT review a decision of the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, made on 11 September 2021, disallowed Mr Florey's objection to an income estimate decision from 4 June 2021. Mr Florey lodged his request for review with the AAT on 21 February 2022, well outside the prescribed 28-day period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Florey an extension of time to lodge his application for review, pursuant to section 91 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. This required the Tribunal to consider the reasons for the delay, the actions taken by the applicant, prejudice to the respondent and the general public, the merits of the objection, and whether it was proper to grant the extension. The Tribunal was guided by principles established in cases such as *Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor* and *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, which emphasise that an acceptable explanation for the delay is a pre-condition for the exercise of discretion and that proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period will generally not be entertained unless it is proper to do so.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Mr Florey had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his delay. Despite being informed of his appeal rights in writing on 11 September 2021, and potentially orally on 1 September 2021, he claimed to have only recently discovered he could appeal. The Tribunal noted a lack of evidence that Mr Florey sought advice on his review rights. While acknowledging that Mr Florey had an arguable case regarding the overestimation of his income, the Tribunal found that granting an extension would cause prejudice to the other parent and was not in the public interest due to the expectation of certainty regarding time limits. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that an extension of time would not be in the overall interest of justice.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Florey's application for an extension of time to seek a review of the Child Support Registrar's decision.