Kfoury and Secretary, Department of Social Services

[2017] AATA 2717

Kfoury and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2017] AATA 2717 (19 December 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/6569

Re:Shady Kfoury

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment

Date:19 December 2017  

Place:Sydney

The application for an extension of time pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is refused.

............................[sgd]............................................

Deputy President B W Rayment

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – extension of time  application – whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension – explanation for delay – whether prejudice to respondent – whether substantive matter has merit – extension of time application refused

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975(Cth) s 29(7)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B W Rayment

19 December 2017

1. This is an application for an extension of time to seek review of an adverse decision of the Social Services & Child Support Division of this Tribunal (AAT1) which affirmed the decision of an authorised review officer to raise a debt against the applicant in circumstances where substantial and repeated payments were made into the applicant’s bank account and not disclosed to the Department. The application was sought to be supported only by the applicant making submissions by telephone.

2. Mr Kfoury sought to explain the delay in making his application for review (being of some 2 months) on the basis that the Tribunal when notifying him of the decision of AAT1, sent it to the wrong address. He stated that the correct address was the address of his parents in Ashcroft. I stated that I would need to ascertain what the records of this Tribunal stated in that respect. Those records indicate that contrary to the submission of the applicant, notification of the AAT1 decision went to his parents’ address at Ashcroft and nowhere else.

3. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of success on any review. The number and amounts of deposits to his bank account (set out as Annexure A to the reasons of AAT1) do not appear to be consistent with gambling profits from poker machines, as the applicant asserted in submissions, quite apart from any other matter which would arise on the review.

4. I am not satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to extend time and the application for an extension of time pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is refused.

I certify that the preceding 4 (four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B W Rayment

...............................[sgd].........................................

Associate

Dated: 19 December 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	12 December 2017
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Department of Human Services