GZZT and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time (EOT) to apply for a second review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant sought to extend the time within which to apply for a review of the AAT's decision regarding the percentage of care for a child, which had determined the other party had 89% care and the applicant 11% care. The applicant stated he received the AAT's decision on 3 December 2020, meaning the standard 28-day period for lodging an application for review would have expired on 31 December 2020. The application for the EOT was filed on 16 February 2021, approximately seven weeks after the deadline.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant's request for an extension of time. This required the Tribunal to consider the provisions of section 29 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), which allows for an extension of time if the Tribunal is satisfied it is reasonable to do so. The Tribunal was guided by the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* (1984) 3 FCR 344, which outline a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider.

The Tribunal considered the length of the delay, which was approximately seven weeks beyond the prescribed 28-day period. The applicant's explanation for the delay was that it had been a busy time of year and he had not initially paid close attention to the first letter enclosing the AAT's decision, only becoming actively engaged upon receiving a subsequent letter notifying of an adjustment to the text of the decision. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided a detailed explanation for the entire period of the delay. While the applicant's prospects of success and any prejudice to the respondent were also relevant considerations, the Tribunal focused on the length of the delay and the adequacy of the explanation provided.

The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time. The applicant's explanation for the significant delay was considered insufficient. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.