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

This matter concerned an application for a second review of a decision by the Secretary, Department of Social Services, regarding the applicant's entitlement to Newstart allowance. The applicant, Mr Laverick, was the beneficiary of a trust, and an authorised review officer had initially determined that 100 per cent of the trust's assets should be attributed to him, resulting in a debt for Newstart allowance. A first review had set aside this decision, directing reconsideration with a 50 per cent asset attribution, which, after recalculation, meant the applicant's debt had been fully repaid and a refund was due. The applicant sought a second review of the original decision, but lodged his application outside the prescribed time limit.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to lodge his application for a second review. In considering this, the Tribunal had to assess the principles governing extensions of time, including whether the applicant had a satisfactory explanation for the delay and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension. The Tribunal also had to consider the potential consequences of a second review, including the possibility that a less favourable outcome might arise for the applicant, and the respondent's submission that the applicant might not have a strong prospect of success on the merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's contentions regarding a cognitive condition but found no evidence that he lacked the ability to interact with the Department or the Tribunal within the prescribed period. It concluded that the applicant had "rested on his rights" and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging his application. While the Tribunal noted that the respondent's failure to fully implement the first review decision, specifically the refund of monies due to the applicant, could be grounds for extending time, it ultimately refused the extension. The Tribunal reasoned that a second review would be conducted afresh and that the applicant's prospects of success were not strong, given the nature of the trust and his ultimate receipt of its holdings.

The Tribunal refused the applicant's request for an extension of time to lodge his application for a second review. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Department to determine the correct rate of Newstart Allowance payable to Mr Laverick for the relevant period, with the understanding that as the debt had been fully repaid, a refund was likely. However, the applicant's application for a second review was dismissed due to the late lodgement.