Hale and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Hale to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support objection decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 2 April 2020. The application for extension was lodged on 7 July 2020, approximately 50 days after the expiry of the prescribed 28-day period for lodging a review application. The Tribunal considered the application on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Ms Hale's request for an extension of time to apply for a review of the objection decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, particularly concerning the time limits for review applications and the criteria for granting an extension of time. The Tribunal was guided by the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 186, which require a balancing of various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the other party and the public interest.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that Ms Hale had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging her review application. While acknowledging her struggles with mental health, the Tribunal noted that this did not prevent her from engaging with other child support matters during the relevant period. The Tribunal also found that Ms Hale had been repeatedly informed of her appeal rights by the Child Support Agency. Although the Tribunal considered that Ms Hale's substantive application might have some merit, particularly concerning the adjusted taxable income of the other parent, it concluded that this merit was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the potential prejudice to the other parent and the public interest in observing time limits.

On balance, the Tribunal determined that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision was refused.