Jazzman and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2025] ARTA 2159

Jazzman and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 2159 (11 September 2025)

Applicant:Miss Jazzman

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar  

Tribunal Numbers:  2025/SC029783 

2025/SC029867

2025/SC029868

Tribunal:General Member S Irvine

Place:Hobart

Date:11 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and in substitution decides that Miss Jazzman’s applications for extensions of time in which to object to the non-agency payment decisions dated 10 January 2024, 5 March 2024 and 12 March 2024 are extended to the days that Miss Jazzman objected to those decisions.

CATCHWORDS 

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – non-agency payment – mortgage payments in lieu of child support – explanation for the delay – some merit – domestic violence – death of family members – decision under review set aside and substituted  

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

1. Miss Jazzman and Mr [A] are the parents of children for whom there is a child support case.

2. On 10 January 2024 Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to credit against Mr [A’s] registered child support liability as a “prescribed npn-agency payment” an amount of $2,027.67.

3. On 5 March 2024 Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to credit against Mr [A’s] registered child support liability as a “prescribed npn-agency payment” an amount of $1,978.18.

4. On 12 March 2024 Child Support made a decision to credit against Mr [A’s] registered child support liability as a “prescribed npn-agency payment” an amount of $1,978.18.

5. Miss Jazzman had a right to object to each of those decisions. To do so within time, she needed to object within 28 days of being notified of the decision, pursuant to section 81 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Registration Act).

6. Miss Jazzman did not dispute that she received the letters dated 10 January 2024, 5 March 2024 and 12 March 2024 that informed her of the relevant decisions. She also did not dispute that she did not lodge an objection to any of those decisions until 10 September 2024, when she lodged objections to the decisions made on 5 March 2024 and 12 March 2024. On 8 February 2025 Miss Jazzman lodged an objection to the decision made on 10 January 2024. In respect of each of those objections Miss Jazzman also applied for an extension of time in which to object, as she is entitled to do pursuant to section 82 of the Registration Act.

7. On 8 May 2025 Child Support refused Miss Jazzman’s applications for extensions of time to object in respect of the decisions made on 5 March 2024 and 12 March 2024. On 21 May 2025 Child Support refused Miss Jazzman’s application for an extension of time to object in respect of the decision made on 10 January 2024. Miss Jazzman promptly applied to this Tribunal for review of all three decisions. A hearing took place on 10 September 2025, Miss Jazzman attended the hearing by video and gave sworn evidence.

8. The principles to be applied when deciding an extension of time application were summarised in Phillips v Australian Girls’ Choir and Another [2001] FMCA 109:

   1. There is no onus of proof upon an applicant for extension of time though an application has to be made. Special circumstances need not be shown, but the court will not grant the application unless positively satisfied it is proper to do so. The "prescribed period" of 28 days is not to be ignored …

   2. It is a prima facie rule that the proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period will not be entertained … It is not a pre-condition for success in an application for extension of time that an acceptable explanation for delay must be given. It is to be expected that such an explanation will normally be given as a relevant matter to be considered, even though there is no rule that such an explanation is an essential pre-condition …

   3. …It is relevant to consider whether the applicant has rested on his rights and whether the respondent was entitled to regard the claim as being finalised. …

   4. Any prejudice to the respondent … is a material factor [which goes] against the grant of an extension.

   5. The mere absence of prejudice is not enough to justify the grant of an extension. …

   6. The merits of the substantial application are properly to be taken into account in considering whether an extension of time should be granted. …

   7. Considerations of fairness as between the applicant and other persons otherwise in a

9. In respect of the reasons for her delay in lodging her objections, Miss Jazzman explained that in early 2024 she was dealing with a number of very challenging personal circumstances. She had separated from Mr [A] in 2023, following several years of domestic violence that affected both herself and her children. Initially she did not seek child support as she feared repercussions but in December 2023 she applied for a child support assessment as she was not able to provide properly for the needs of the children without assistance. She said this resulted in an escalation of difficult behaviour from Mr [A], including taking away the car she had been driving and leaving her and the children without a means of independent transport. Through that period she was also caring for her two children, both of whom are on the autism spectrum and both of whom were experiencing emotional difficulties as a result of the domestic violence they had witnessed and been subject to. Miss Jazzman said she was new to the child support system and was having difficulty fully understanding all the rules and processes that applied.

10. In addition to those circumstances, Miss Jazzman said that her [sibling] died suddenly in February 2024 in difficult circumstances, and her mother also died only seven weeks later from an illness.

11. Miss Jazzman told the Tribunal that as a result of all of those circumstances she had difficulty in comprehending the correct process for lodging an objection, and she was also fearful of doing so. She acknowledged that she had several conversations with Child Support about the decisions and the need to object, but it was not until September that she was able to actually lodge the objections. In January she realised that one of the decisions had not been included with her original objection and so she lodged an objection in respect of the overlooked decision.

12. In support of her contentions about the domestic violence she suffered Miss Jazzman provided the Tribunal with a letter from [Support service 1]. That letter confirms that Miss Jazzman has worked with that organisation since [November] 2023, that she had reported significant and ongoing domestic and family violence toward herself and the children both during and following her relationship with Mr [A], and that the abuse had had a profound effect on Miss Jazzman.

13. I am satisfied that there were legitimate reasons for Miss Jazzman’s delay in lodging her objections.

14. When Child Support refused Miss Jazzman’s extension of time applications, it noted that “there is merit to your objection”. Miss Jazzman said that she disagreed with the decisions to credit the non-agency payments because she did not agree to the mortgage payments being paid in lieu of child support, and her view is that Mr [A] deliberately manipulated the situation so that she would be unable to pay the mortgage, so that he could make the payment and then claim credit against the child support.

15. I note that section 71D of the Registration Act provides that the Child Support Registrar may refuse to credit an amount claimed as a non-agency payment if satisfied that, in the circumstances of the particular case, the amount ought not to be credited. In the circumstances Miss Jazzman’s objections cannot be said to be wholly without merit.

16. The documents provided by Child Support show that after the three decisions the subject of this review, Child Support made subsequent decisions to refuse to credit payments made by Mr [A] in similar circumstances. Mr [A] objected to one of those decisions, and on 28 July 2025 Child Support upheld his objection in respect of a payment made on 7 May 2024. Miss Jazzman has applied to this Tribunal for a review of that objection decision.

17. In addition, following his successful objection, Mr [A] applied to have a number of other payments credited against his liability, and on 11 August 2025 Child Support made a number of decisions to credit those payments. Miss Jazzman told the Tribunal that she is about to lodge her objections to those decisions.

18. Given that there are a number of other decisions that raise very similar issues to which Miss Jazzman has also objected, I am satisfied that Mr [A] will not be prejudiced by the granting of Miss Jazzman’s extension of time applications.

19. Viewing those matters as a whole, the preferable decision is to grant Miss Jazzman’s applications for extensions of time in which to object in respect of the three decisions. The time to object is extended to the days that Miss Jazzman in fact lodged her objections.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decisions under review and in substitution decides that Miss Jazzman’s applications for extensions of time in which to object to the non-agency payment decisions dated 10 January 2024, 5 March 2024 and 12 March 2024 are extended to the days that Miss Jazzman objected to those decisions.

Date of hearing:	Wednesday, 10 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	Self-represented