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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to seek a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the AAT on first review. The Applicant had lodged a claim for Disability Support Pension (DSP) which was initially rejected and subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer. The AAT, on first review, also affirmed the decision to reject the DSP claim. The Applicant sought to appeal this AAT first review decision, but did so more than two years after the decision was made.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for the Applicant to lodge an application for a second review of the AAT's first review decision, pursuant to s 29(7) of the AAT Act. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and subsequent authorities, which outline a range of factors to be weighed in exercising this discretion. These factors include the prima facie rule against entertaining proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period, the importance of an explanation for any delay, actions taken by the applicant, prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the substantial application.

Deputy President Boyle P considered the Applicant's circumstances, noting that the Applicant was quadriplegic and had experienced a significant delay of over two years in being informed of the AAT's first review decision. The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's explanation for this delay as reasonable in the circumstances. Applying the principles from *Hunter Valley* and other relevant authorities, the Tribunal weighed all the factors, including the Applicant's significant disability and the lack of prejudice to the Respondent, against the prima facie rule that proceedings should be commenced within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal concluded that, having regard to all the circumstances, it was reasonable to extend the time for the Applicant to make an application for a second review. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was granted.