Horne and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Horne for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 9 January 2020. The Registrar's decision had partly allowed Mr Horne's objection to a "change of assessment" decision. Mr Horne lodged his application for AAT first review on 4 June 2020, significantly outside the statutory 28-day time limit prescribed by section 90 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and paragraph 29(1)(d) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Horne an extension of time to lodge his application for review. In considering this, the Tribunal had to assess the explanation provided for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, any prejudice to the Child Support Registrar, and relevant public interest considerations. Mr Horne cited mental health issues, including high levels of anxiety and PTSD, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for his inability to deal with his child support affairs and his failure to open correspondence from the Child Support Agency.

The Tribunal acknowledged that Mr Horne was plainly affected by his mental health issues, but found that his explanation for the lengthy delay was not satisfactory. While understanding his difficulty in dealing with the Child Support Agency, the Tribunal noted that Mr Horne had continued to work and had an obligation to manage his affairs. The Tribunal considered that Mr Horne had effectively rested on his rights by choosing not to engage with his child support matters, which weighed heavily against his application. Although the merits of his substantive application could not be definitively dismissed, the Tribunal was particularly concerned about the potential prejudice to the other party, who had been entitled to rely on the decision for many months. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the public interest in timely reviews and certainty regarding child support outcomes.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused Mr Horne's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal concluded that the interests of justice required this refusal, given the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay and the potential prejudice to the other party. The Tribunal noted that Mr Horne remained at liberty to make further applications for a change of assessment should his circumstances materially change.