Louboutin and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application made by Mr Louboutin to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support objection decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 9 February 2018. The application for review was lodged on 2 April 2018, which was outside the prescribed 28-day period following notification of the objection decision. The AAT considered the application on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Louboutin an extension of time to apply for a review of the child support objection decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles for exercising discretion to grant an extension of time, as outlined in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 186, and other relevant authorities. These principles involve balancing various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the parties or the public.

The Tribunal found that Mr Louboutin’s explanation for the approximately 24-day delay in lodging his application for review was reasonable, accepting that there was a short delay in his receipt of the electronic notification of the objection decision. However, the Tribunal conducted a careful review of the merits of Mr Louboutin’s substantive application for review. It concluded that his grounds relating to his adjusted taxable income, the high costs of educating the children, and the transfer of money, goods, or property to the children or the receiving parent had weak prospects of success. The Tribunal considered that the Child Support Agency had reasonably assessed Mr Louboutin’s income based on the available financial information, and that the other grounds for departure from the assessment were not supported by sufficient evidence.

Weighing the reasonable explanation for the delay against the weak merits of the substantive application, the Tribunal determined that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision was refused.