Greenwood and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Mr Greenwood applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 7 February 2023. The original decision disallowed Mr Greenwood's objection to the refusal to accept his income estimate for the period 12 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. Mr Greenwood lodged his application for review with the AAT on 14 November 2023, which was more than 28 days after the Registrar's decision, necessitating the extension of time application.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Greenwood an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This involved considering the relevant provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which govern the time limits for lodging review applications and the circumstances under which extensions may be granted. The Tribunal had to assess various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, potential prejudice to the other party and the wider public, and the overall fairness and 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*. The Tribunal found that Mr Greenwood had provided no adequate explanation for the significant delay of over eight months in lodging his application. It was noted that he had previously been granted an extension of time to lodge an objection, indicating an awareness of the need for timely applications. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the merits of Mr Greenwood's underlying objection to be lacking, as his declared income differed from that provided by his employer, and there was no compelling evidence to suggest a different outcome would be reached. The Tribunal also found that granting an extension would cause prejudice to the other party and the wider public, and would not be fair to other individuals in similar positions.

Consequently, the AAT refused Mr Greenwood's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal concluded that, in light of the lack of adequate reasons for the delay, the absence of apparent merit in the substantive application, and the potential prejudice and unfairness involved, it was not proper or equitable to extend the permissible time for lodging his application for review.