Knott and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2021] AATA 3363

Knott and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 3363 (14 July 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

EXTENSION APPLICATION

NUMBER:2021/SC021171

APPLICANT:  Mr Knott

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

DATE DECISION MADE:               14 July 2021

APPLICATION:

An extension application made on 6 April 2021 asking the AAT to consider the application for AAT first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 31 May 2019 despite the 28 day period for applying for review having ended.

EXTENSION OF TIME CRITERIA

In its assessment of an extension of time application, the tribunal must consider the reasons for the delay; the merits of the application and prejudice (if any) to all parties concerned.[1]

[1] Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 186

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time - no satisfactory explanation for the delay - 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 so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

DECISION:

The extension application is refused. In summary, this is because; the tribunal is not satisfied an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking a review exists[2] especially as the records show Mr Knott was notified of the decision via post on 31 May 2019[3] and such notice is deemed to be received.[4]  The letter enclosing the decision and the decision itself clearly stipulate and place Mr Knott on notice that…..

[2] 676 days out of time

[3] Folio 2

[4] section 31 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Regulations 2018. Subsection 31(2) of the Regulations provides that “If service has been attempted by use of prepaid post, then, unless the contrary is proved, service will be taken to have been effected at the time when the notice or other communication would, in the ordinary course of the post, have arrived at the place to which it was addressed.”

‘if you think this decision is wrong, you can ask the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to review it.  You must do so within 28 days from the date you receive this letter….’

In the application for an extension, Mr Knott states that the delay is in part due to the fact that he was working away and that he did not collect his mail until he visited his parents.  This is accepted however in such cases, it would have been prudent for Mr Knott to appoint a nominee or representative to manage his affairs or redirect his mail.  In the absence of any reasonable account of circumstances to justify a 676 delay in lodging the application for review, the tribunal finds there is no reasonable explanation for the delay that would justify an extension of time.

The tribunal also considered the delay in seeking a review prejudices the other party who is entitled to consider the matter finalised after the expiry of the review period, particularly given the lapse of time.

The tribunal next considered the merits of the application.  The tribunal is not required to forensically assess the matter for the purposes of this extension of time application[5], however, on review of the evidence before it, is satisfied the decision, subject of the extension application,(i.e to extend the child support assessment beyond [Child 1’s]  18^th birthday until 15 November 2019) has been sufficiently grounded in material reasonably capable of supporting it. The tribunal finds the merits are weak, and further review by the tribunal is likely to be unsuccessful on the basis of the contemporaneous evidence before it[6]. 

[5] Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; 195 CLR 516 Per Brennan CJ and McHugh J at [3], [also Kirby J at 66]. Footnotes and citations omitted.

[6] Smith and Commissioner of Patents [2012] AATA 60 at [29-31])

Finally, there is prejudice to the general public due to unnecessary administration costs which would not be afforded to other individuals in similar circumstances especially where the timeframe for review was clearly articulated in the decision statement and covering letter forwarded by the Child Support Agency.[7] 

[7] Folio 2

Senior Member D Benk