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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Narelle Loseby for an extension of time to lodge an application for a second review of a decision made by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The original decision, dated 22 February 2016, affirmed a decision that Ms Loseby had been overpaid parenting payment. The AAT decision was posted to Ms Loseby on 1 March 2016. Ms Loseby sought an extension of time to lodge her application for a second review, which was heard by Brigadier AG Warner, Member.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Ms Loseby an extension of time to lodge her application for review. This required the Tribunal to consider the length of the delay, the explanation provided for the delay, Ms Loseby's awareness of her appeal rights, and the merits of her substantive application. The Tribunal's power to grant such an extension is conferred by section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which allows for an extension if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances.

The Tribunal considered the principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Re Johnson*, which guide the exercise of discretion in extension of time applications. These principles include considering the applicant's actions, any prejudice to the respondent, wider public prejudice, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal noted that while an acceptable explanation for delay is not essential, it is normally expected. In this instance, the Tribunal found the length of the delay to be significant, with Ms Loseby's application being approximately 30 days out of time based on her stated date of receipt of the AAT decision, and potentially more than 60 days out of time if an extension to 14 June 2016 was sought. The Tribunal also found that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and that Ms Loseby had limited prospects of success in her substantive application.

Weighing all the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that it was not reasonable to grant an extension of time. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused Ms Loseby's application for an extension of time to lodge her application for a second review of the decision dated 22 February 2016.