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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Johnson for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The dispute centred on a decision made on 18 November 2016 to reject Ms Johnson's claim for Newstart Allowance (NSA). Ms Johnson sought to have this decision reviewed, aiming for a financial outcome, specifically the back payment of NSA from 3 November 2016. The case was heard by G Hallwood M.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Ms Johnson an extension of time to seek review of the decision. This involved considering the reasons for her delay in seeking review, the strength of her case, and the utility of the application for her, particularly in light of the potential financial outcome she sought. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of section 107 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) on the date of effect of any favourable determination.

The Tribunal determined that granting an extension of time would be inappropriate. It reasoned that section 107 of the *Social Security (Administration) Act 1999* (Cth) significantly limited the potential financial utility of the application. Specifically, section 107(3) stipulates that if a review application is made more than 13 weeks after notice of a rejection decision is given, any favourable determination on review can only take effect from the date the review application was made. In Ms Johnson's case, this meant that even if the original rejection decision was found to be in error, arrears could not be paid before 13 October 2017, which was after her NSA payments had already commenced. The Tribunal accepted the Secretary's submission that the application was substantively without merit as it could not deliver the financial outcome Ms Johnson sought. Applying principles from *Halliday v High Performance Personnel Pty Ltd*, the Tribunal concluded that extending time would lead to pointless litigation, stress, delay, inconvenience, and expense, and would be contrary to the public interest and the administration of administrative justice. The Tribunal also noted that Ms Johnson had lodged a claim under the Compensation Caused by Defective Administration scheme, which might provide an alternative avenue for relief.