Hosking and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the AAT in its Social Services and Child Support Division. The Applicant sought to have the AAT1 decision, which affirmed a previous decision by an Authorised Review Officer, reviewed by the General Division of the AAT. The Applicant's application for an extension of time was lodged 40 days after the prescribed 28-day period had expired, and the Respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, opposed the application.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to exercise its discretion under s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to grant the Applicant an extension of time. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider a range of factors, including the length of the delay, the explanation provided for the delay, the Applicant's awareness of his appeal rights, any prejudice to the Respondent or the general public, the merits of the substantive application, and the availability of alternative avenues of relief.

The Tribunal applied established principles for considering extension of time applications, drawing on authorities such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Comcare Australia v Donald J Grimes and Maxene Lydia Thompson*. These principles indicate that while proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period are prima facie not entertained, an extension may be granted if it is proper to do so. Relevant considerations include whether the applicant rested on their rights, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, the merits of the substantive application, and overall fairness. The Tribunal noted the Applicant's explanation that the AAT1 decision email went to his junk folder and that he was unaware of the need for specialist confirmation of his medical conditions. However, the Tribunal also considered the Applicant's self-represented status, his engagement during the hearing, and his demonstrated emotional lability, which aligned with medical reports.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the Applicant's application for an extension of time. While acknowledging the Applicant's promptness in seeking an extension once he realised the decision had been made, the Tribunal found that the delay of 40 days, coupled with the lack of a fully satisfactory explanation and the absence of submissions addressing the merits of the substantive application, weighed against granting the extension. The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant had not filed his own submissions as directed.