Kissinger and Child Support Registrar (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1946
•22 August 2025
Kissinger and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1946 (22 August 2025)
Applicant/s: Ms Kissinger
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Tribunal Number: 2025/SC030121
Tribunal: Senior Member J Longo
Place:Melbourne
Date:22 August 2025
Application: An extension application made on 11 July 2025 asking the Tribunal to consider the application for an eligible social services decision (first review) of the Child Support Registrar on 5 March 2024 despite the period for applying for review having ended.
Decision:The extension application is refused.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – departure determination – lengthy delay in review request – no explanation – based on new evidence available – no merit – extension of time refused
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
On 5 March 2024, a delegate of the Child Support Registrar (the Registrar) advised Ms Kissinger by letter of a decision to partly allow a departure determination under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act), setting aside a decision made on 29 December 2023 and deciding as follows:
· For the period 1 August 2023 until 31 July 2025, the adjusted taxable income of Mr [A] is set at $100,000.
On 11 July 2025, Ms Kissinger lodged a request for review, including an application for an extension of time with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Ms Kissinger provided a written statement as to why she failed to request review of the decision within 28 days of receipt of the decision.
The issue to be considered is whether Ms Kissinger should be granted an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the Registrar’s decision.
CONSIDERATION
The law relating to a person’s right to seek review of a decision of the Registrar is contained in section 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act). Subsection 18(3) of the ART Act requires that a person must lodge a review request with this Tribunal within 28 days after a notice of the decision of the Registrar is served on them.
Where the period for lodgement has ended, the person may send the application to the Tribunal along with a request that the review be treated as if it was duly lodged, that is, that it was lodged within the allowed time (section 91 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act)). This is commonly referred to as an extension of time request. Section 92 of the Act then provides that the Tribunal must consider the application for an extension of time, grant or refuse that application and advise the person of the decision in writing.
In this case, Ms Kissinger was sent a notification electronically on 5 March 2024 advising her of the decision made by the Registrar partly allowing a departure determination, as described above in these reasons. Ms Kissinger lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 11 July 2025. As this request for a review of the decision was not lodged within 28 days, an application for an extension of time must now be considered.
The High Court in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, in dealing with an extension of time case and the general concept of time limitation periods, noted that while an extension of time is the exception to the general rule, there are legislative provisions which in the circumstances of the facts of an individual case, may indicate that justice is served by the general rule being overruled.
In making this decision, I have considered the principles for the exercise of a discretion to allow an extension of time as set out in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 (Hunter Valley Developments). In that case, the Federal Court said that an extension of time should not be granted unless it was proper to do so, noting that in general, applications or proceedings commenced outside of a prescribed time limit will not be considered. The Court also said that there must be an acceptable explanation for the delay and that it must be fair and equitable in the circumstances to extend time. The Federal Court identified six factors to take into account when deciding whether to grant an extension of time, which I have addressed below.
These principles have more recently been restated in the decision of her honour Collier J in Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31. These authorities, Hunter Valley Developments and Englezos, clearly set out the well settled considerations when considering whether to exercise the discretion to allow an extension of time and the factors a decision-maker should consider and balance.
10.Ms Kissinger’s written application stated that the delay was due to the following reasons:
We did not have any new information about [Mr A’s] income at the time. He advised Child Support that his income had not increased and now we different information from his personal tax income for 2024 which is on its own is higher than change of assessment amount. Requesting review under Reason 8A as the assessment decision was unfair.
11.No further information was provided as to the delay in lodging the application. These submissions, in my view, do not provide an acceptable explanation for the delay. Ms Kissinger’s statement above leads me to conclude that there was nothing preventing an application being lodged within the 28 day time-limit. I note that Ms Kissinger was notified electronically of the outcome of the objection decision on 5 March 2024. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that Ms Kissinger did not receive the decision electronically, I find that the decision was received by Ms Kissinger and am also satisfied that the cover letter to the decision advised Ms Kissinger of the right to seek review with the Tribunal in accordance with subsection 87(3) of the Act. The decision also included information as to further rights of review and the 28-day time limit. Ms Kissinger sought review on 11 July 2025. This is more than 12 months after the date of the decision and the date of notification of the decision. Ms Kissinger has not provided any reason that prevented her from seeking review of the decision, rather has indicated that the reason for the request for review is based on new information being made available.
12.I find that Ms Kissinger was advised of her rights of review and has not provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, given she was aware of her review rights and was advised of these rights to seek review with the Tribunal. I note that the letters and decisions refer to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which was replaced by this Tribunal on 14 October 2024.
13.Ms Kissinger has also not provided any submissions regarding the merits of her request for an extension of time to apply for review of the decision, apart from stating that there was new evidence of the other party’s income which renders the decision unfair. I have not conducted a substantive review of the decision, however I am satisfied that the application has no merit. The application for review is not based on any error in the decision made by the Registrar, rather it is due to new information being available. Ms Kissinger could lodge a further application with the Registrar for a departure determination to consider the new material and such an application could be considered retrospectively under the legislation.
14.I find that it would be unfair in the circumstances to extend the time to lodge a request for review, particularly in the absence of an acceptable explanation for the delay. I find that although there would not be prejudice to the other party, there is prejudice to the community. I find that the interests all citizens have, in effective public administration and the premise that prospective applicants must adhere to statutory time limits in seeking review of administrative decisions, is an important consideration in the granting of an extension of time. There is nothing in the submissions before me which persuades me that disturbing the finality of the decision making process would be a fair outcome in this matter.
15.I am therefore not satisfied it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.
DECISION
The extension application is refused.
| Date(s) of hearing: | 22 August 2025 (on the papers) |
| Representative for the Applicant: | None |
0
4
0