Iqbal 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 seek review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT). The Applicant sought to challenge the SSAT's decision, which affirmed a decision by an authorised review officer to cancel his Disability Support Pension (DSP) due to his income from weekly compensation payments exceeding the allowable limit. The Applicant had ceased working in October 2010 and was later granted the DSP, but this was subsequently cancelled in August 2012 when he began receiving workers' compensation payments. The SSAT affirmed this cancellation in December 2012.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant the Applicant an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the SSAT's 2012 decision. Section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) permits the Tribunal to extend time if satisfied it is reasonable in all the circumstances. The Tribunal was required to consider various factors, including the length of the delay, the Applicant's awareness of his appeal rights and the reasons for the delay, the prospects of success of the review, potential prejudice to the parties, and the availability of alternative avenues of relief.

The Tribunal noted that the SSAT decision was issued in December 2012, meaning an application for review should have been lodged by January 2013. The Applicant's application for review and request for an extension of time were not filed until June 2023, representing a delay of approximately ten and a half years. The Applicant stated he only became aware of the decision in May 2023 and that he had not read the 2012 decision properly at the time due to his health condition. However, the Tribunal found the delay to be significant and, referencing the principles in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v The Hon. Barry Cohen, Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* and *Zizza v Federal Commissioner of Taxation*, considered that the substantial passage of time made it difficult to gather reliable evidence and that memories would have faded, potentially prejudicing the Respondent.

The Tribunal refused the Applicant's application for an extension of time. The significant length of the delay, coupled with the difficulties in obtaining reliable evidence after such a long period, weighed against granting the extension, despite the Applicant's stated reasons for the delay.