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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek a second review of a decision made by the Department of Social Services, brought before Ms S Taglieri SC, Member of the Tribunal. The applicant argued that the substantive decision regarding a debt was incorrect and that she had suffered a grave injustice. Her primary grounds for seeking an extension were severe chronic illnesses, disruption due to storm and flood damage, and non-receipt of the initial written decision, which she claimed meant she had an arguable case on the merits and would suffer disadvantage if a review was not permitted.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the second review application was made out of time and, if so, whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time. The applicant contended that her circumstances, including her health and the non-receipt of correspondence, justified an extension, and that refusing it would cause her grave injustice and disadvantage.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be confusing, circular, and conflicting, particularly regarding the timing of her receipt of the initial decision and her access to her mailbox. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of illness and disruption, the Tribunal was only prepared to accept her evidence if corroborated. Based on registry records, the Tribunal found that the initial decision was posted on 6 June 2018, and a second copy was posted on 2 July 2018. The applicant contacted the registry on 3 August 2018 seeking a second level review. The Tribunal concluded that granting an extension of time would lead to a wasteful use of public resources on unmeritorious arguments, which would be contrary to the public interest and the interests of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal was not persuaded that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time sought.