Irving and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Irving for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar had disallowed Mr Irving's objection on 15 September 2017, concerning claims for "non-agency payments". Mr Irving lodged his application for AAT first review on 13 July 2019, significantly outside the statutory 28-day time limit.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Irving an extension of time to lodge his application for review. In doing so, the Tribunal considered the established legal principles for granting such extensions, which involve assessing the explanation for the delay, the merits of the substantial application, any prejudice to the other party, and relevant public interest considerations. The Tribunal noted that the starting position is that proceedings commenced outside a statutory period will generally not be entertained, but the primary concern is to ensure justice is done between the parties.

The Tribunal found that Mr Irving's explanation for the extensive delay was not compelling. While he cited interstate travel for work, alienation from his children, an undiagnosed medical condition, and a subsequent Supreme Court case as reasons for not pursuing the matter earlier, the Tribunal noted that he was verbally advised of the objection's disallowance on 22 September 2017 and appeared to have rested on his rights regarding the "non-agency payment" matter, while actively pursuing other issues. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the substantial application lacked merit, as there was no evidence that the payments in question were intended to be in lieu of child support. The Tribunal also considered the prejudice to the other party, Ms [A], who was entitled to rely on the decision after the objection period expired, and the public interest in timely finality of decisions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused Mr Irving's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal determined that the interests of justice were best served by this refusal, given the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the absence of merit in the substantive application, the potential prejudice to Ms [A], and the public interest in certainty and timely resolution of child support matters.