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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for a second review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, Lacey, sought to extend the time to appeal a decision dated 8 December 2017, having lodged her substantive application approximately 12 weeks after the prescribed 28-day period. The respondent was the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant this extension.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether there had been a significant delay in lodging the application for review, whether the applicant was aware of her appeal rights, and whether she had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay. The Tribunal also considered whether granting an extension would prejudice the respondent or the public, the merits of the applicant's substantive application, and whether alternative avenues of relief were available. The Tribunal noted that no single factor carried primacy, and all relevant factors had to be weighed together.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant difficulties understanding government processes, exacerbated by language barriers and confusion in her dealings with Centrelink. Despite this, the Tribunal determined that the delay of 12 weeks was not insignificant and weighed against granting an extension. The applicant's explanation for the delay, that she needed more time to understand the form due to English not being her first language, was considered unsatisfactory, particularly given the legislative intent for finality in government decision-making. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had been informed of her appeal rights in the AAT's first review decision.

On balance, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be reasonable to extend the time for the applicant to make an application for a review of the AAT1's decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time.