Levett and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2025] ARTA 1593

Levett and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1593 (15 July 2025)

Applicant/s:  Mr Levett

Respondent:  Child Support Registrar    

Tribunal Number:   2025/SC029823 

Tribunal:  Member S Letch

Place:Brisbane

Date:15 July 2025

Application:  An extension application made on 19 May 2025 asking the Tribunal to consider the application for an eligible social services decision (first review) of the Child Support Registrar on 18 December 2024 despite the period for applying for review having ended.

Decision:The extension application is refused.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – refusal to grant an extension of time to object – no reasonable explanation for the delay – limited merit – public interest – decision under review affirmed

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

1. This is an application by Mr Levett for an extension of time to apply to the Tribunal for review of a decision of Child Support dated 18 December 2024. That decision “partly allowed” his objection to an earlier “change of assessment” decision.

2. There is a time limit to apply for review. Mr Levett was required to make his application to the Tribunal within 28 days of receiving the decision letter of 18 December 2024 electronically.

3. Mr Levett made an application for first review on 19 May 2025, well outside the 28‑day period. In his written application, Mr Levett advised the following:

   It was unfortunate that I only found out that the decision was already made on the 19/12/2024 two days ago on the phone to CSS I have consistently called child support services ( which will be on record ) every month for to two hours per phone call to see if a decision had been made from my objection to my change of assessment. You can imagine the frustration when I’ve had the run around constantly telling me that a decision has not been made yet. And I asked two days ago when child support services called me ,has a decision been made yet? and they told me it happened in December. So now this is why I’m applying for a Review through ART which CSS advised me to do. The main reason is my child support increased from my ex partners review she had done on me , so I asked CSS to do a review for me on my ex partners income. I know she is working and has a business and a company and she claims she is only getting Centrelink payments and her income is 25k when it is higher. Please help me as I am paying too much child support for my income when my ex is making more than she is claiming.

4. The established cases indicate that the starting position is the prima facie rule that proceedings commenced outside a statutory period will not be entertained (Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411 at 416). However, the primary concern “is to do that which will enable justice to be done between the parties” (see Martinsen v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services [2004] FCA 297 per Spender J). Spender J quoted McHugh J in Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 459 (Gallo v Dawson) as follows:

   In order to determine whether the rules [imposing time limits] will work an injustice, it is necessary to have regard to the history of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the litigation, and the consequences for the parties of the grant or refusal of the application for extension of time ...

   When the application is for an extension of time … it is always necessary to consider the prospects of the applicant succeeding in the appeal.

5. In line with Wilcox J’s survey of cases in Hunter Valley Developments P/L v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344, the Tribunal proposes to consider the matters identified in Gallo v Dawson under the following headings:

   ·the explanation for the delay;

   ·the merits of the substantial application;

   ·any prejudice to the other party, including any prejudice in defending the proceedings occasioned by the delay; and

   ·any public interest considerations that might flow from a successful application including “the unsettling of other people … or of established practices”.

Explanation for the delay

1. The absence of a reasonable explanation for delay will ordinarily exclude the granting of an extension of time.

2. The covering letter to the objection decision clearly advised Mr Levett of the requirement to make his application to the Tribunal within 28 days. Furthermore, Child Support recorded the following file note on 19 December 2024:

   * The reason for [MR LEVETT’S] call:
   PP called in re a missed call.

   * No need to transfer the call
   * [MR LEVETT] does have an active Online Account

   * [MR LEVETT’S] enquiry cannot be resolved online
   * [MR LEVETT] does not have a provisional income

   * [MR LEVETT] has no debt (including payee overpayment) or a suitable payment
   arrangement is in place.

   * All appropriate action taken on outstanding intrays

   * Details of the discussion with [MR LEVETT]:

   I advised it was re the objection outcome and explained the letter that was sent.
   I advised PP of the decision.
   PP understood.
   PP asked about the objection related to the RP estimate income, I advised that is yet
   to be allocated and is still to be finalised.

   PP had no further questions.

3. Mr Levett was provided written advice of the 28-day time limit; he was advised of the decision verbally on 19 December 2024. He does not have a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Merits of the objection

1. There is no purpose to be served by granting an extension if an application is not likely to result in the outcome sought by Mr Levett.

10.At face value, the Child Support decision appears entirely reasonable. However, “change of assessment” decisions give a degree of latitude to a decision maker. It cannot be said that the application, if permitted to proceed, would have no prospects for success.

Potential prejudice to the other party

11.I am concerned about the possible prejudice to the other party who has been entitled to rely on the decision in the absence of a timely application by Mr Levett. This is a material factor against granting an extension.

Public interest considerations

12.Parliament has seen fit to set a 28-day time limit for the lodgement of objections so that parents (and Child Support) can act with certainty as to the outcome when the objection period has elapsed. The public has an interest in reviews of decisions made by Child Support being performed in a timely fashion and in a manner that ensures all applicants are treated fairly and equally. Accordingly, an extension of the time for an objection is not to be automatically granted.

Conclusion

13.Mr Levett does not have a reasonable explanation for not making his application within 28 days. There is a possibility of material prejudice to the other parent. I consider that the interests of justice require that the extension application be refused.

DECISION

The extension application is refused.