Levick and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2021] AATA 2344

Levick and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 2344 (3 June 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

EXTENSION APPLICATION

NUMBER:2021/BC021395

APPLICANT:  Mr Levick

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

DATE DECISION MADE:               3 June 2021

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.

APPLICATION:

An extension application made on 1 May 2021 asking the AAT to consider the application for AAT first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 30 March 2021 despite the 28 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

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 Levick was notified of the decision electronically on 30 March 2021.

[2]4 days out 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.

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[3], however, on review of the evidence before it, is satisfied the decision, subject of the extension application, (estimate reconciliation) 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.[4] Mr Levick wishes for his son’s income to be taken into account in the overall assessment.    Redress on this ground can be sought administratively via a change of assessment application. (Even if this matter was to proceed to a hearing, Mr Levick could not secure the outcome that he seeks as the only decision capable of review is the income estimate,  which cannot factor any income earned by a child of the assessment). 

[3] 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.

[4] 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.[5] 

[5] Folio 9

Senior Member D Benk