Lonargon and Child Support Registrar (Child support) - [2025] ARTA 513

Lonargon and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 513 (20 March 2025)

Applicant/s: Mr Lonargon

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Tribunal Number: 2024/MC028948
Tribunal:General Member J Moir
Place: Sydney
Date:20 March 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – regular contact to express concerns – special circumstances – delay in obtaining an amended tax assessment – potential merit to the arguments – significant prejudice to the other parent – 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

BACKGROUND

This review concerns a decision made by Services Australia (Child Support) on 5 November 2024 to refuse Mr Lonargon an extension of time to object to a decision made on 9 May 2022. Mr Lonargon was the paying parent in a child support assessment (the assessment) for his daughter [Child 1], which ended when she turned 18 in September 2023.
Based on Child Support records, on 30 June 2020, Mr Lonargon’s 2017/18 adjusted taxable income (ATI) of $218,651 was retrospectively applied to the assessment for the period 1 November 2018 to 5 May 2020. Prior to this, the assessment for that period was based on various provisional income amounts of around $160,000. As a result of this decision, Mr Lonargon’s child support liability for the period increased, adding to an existing arrears amount.
In December 2021, Child Support was advised by the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO) of Mr Lonargon’s amended ATI for 2017/18 of $168,608. This was not automatically applied to the assessment. Mr Lonargon raised this issue with Child Support and on 9 May 2022 a decision was made not to apply the amended ATI to the assessment in accordance with the provisions of section 56 of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act).
On 8 December 2023 Mr Lonargon lodged a written objection to the decision of 9 May 2022, along with an application to extend the time allowed for an objection to be accepted.
On 5 November 2024, Child Support declined to extend the time period for lodgement of the objection to the decision of 9 May 2022.
Mr Lonargon sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 3 December 2024.
Mr Lonargon participated in a video hearing on 7 March 2025 and gave oral evidence. Other evidence before the Tribunal was in the hearing papers containing material provided by Child Support (358 pages). Mr Lonargon had submitted audio files of various telephone conversations with Child Support officers, and had asked that these be included in the evidence. The Tribunal did not include these recordings in the evidence, because there was no confirmation that the recordings had been properly obtained and made in accordance with Part 2A…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lonargon and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Details

AGLC: Lonargon and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 513
Case: [2025] ARTA 513
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Lonargon and the Child Support Registrar, the Administrative Review Tribunal assessed Mr Lonargon's application for an extension of time to object to a decision made by the Registrar on 9 May 2022. This decision refused Mr Lonargon's request to have his amended 2017/18 adjusted taxable income (ATI) applied retrospectively to his child support assessment. Mr Lonargon argued that he should be granted an extension of time to object to this decision, as the delay in lodging his objection was due to circumstances beyond his control, and he believed there were errors in the child support assessment.

The Tribunal considered whether Mr Lonargon had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging his objection and whether he had rested on his rights. The Tribunal found that while Mr Lonargon had been in regular contact with Child Support and had expressed concerns about the decision, he had repeatedly disregarded the advice given to him about how to have these concerns addressed. This included being advised on multiple occasions that he would need to lodge a written objection and request an extension of time if he wanted the decision reviewed. Despite this advice, it was over a year before he made the written objection and extension of time application.

Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the merits of Mr Lonargon's objection and whether there was potential prejudice to the other parent if the extension of time was granted. While Mr Lonargon argued that he had an arguable case, the Tribunal considered that the lack of an adequate explanation for his significant delay, combined with the likely prejudice to the other parent, who had no opportunity to participate in these proceedings, and the community as a whole, meant that the discretion to allow an extension of time should not be granted. The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar's decision to refuse the extension of time was correct and affirmed the decision under review.

Orders