Heaton and Ellsworth (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Heaton to reinstate his child support review application, which had previously been dismissed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for non-compliance with a Tribunal direction. The Child Support Registrar opposed the reinstatement. Mr Heaton sought reinstatement on the grounds that the Tribunal had made an error, misconstrued a provision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), and had denied him procedural fairness.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the dismissal of Mr Heaton's application constituted an "error" within the meaning of subsection 42A(10) of the AAT Act, which is the sole basis for exercising discretion to reinstate a dismissed application. This involved considering the scope of "error" as interpreted in case law, particularly the Federal Court decision in *Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Indigenous Affairs* [2002] FCAFC 367. The Tribunal also had to assess whether Mr Heaton had been denied procedural fairness, particularly in light of the significant consequences of the underlying child support assessment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the discretion to reinstate under subsection 42A(10) of the AAT Act is broad and extends beyond mere administrative error, potentially encompassing errors made by a party or their representative. However, in this instance, the dismissal resulted from Mr Heaton's deliberate failure to comply with a case management timetable, which had been clearly communicated to him and his legal representatives. The Tribunal found no error on its part, distinguishing the facts from *Goldie* where the dismissal was more directly linked to the Tribunal's actions. The Tribunal also found no denial of procedural fairness, noting that the timetable and consequences of non-compliance were made clear, and that proceeding without the necessary financial disclosure would have been speculative and inappropriate for child support matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Heaton's application for reinstatement, finding that the dismissal was a direct result of his non-compliance with Tribunal directions and not due to any error on the part of the Tribunal.