Mason and John Holland Pty Ltd (Compensation)

The matter before Deputy President Boyle concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of decisions made by the Respondent concerning the Applicant's weekly incapacity entitlements under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). The Applicant sought an extension of time in relation to a decision dated 9 December 2016, which recalculated his entitlements for an accepted "aggravation of osteoarthrosis ankle joint" condition. The Respondent had reconsidered its previous determinations, identified a comparable employee to assess Normal Weekly Earnings and Normal Weekly Hours, and applied section 8(10) of the SRC Act to reduce the Applicant's Normal Weekly Earnings due to the conclusion of available work.

The primary legal issue was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the Applicant an extension of time to lodge his application for review. Under section 29(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (AAT Act), applications for review are generally required to be lodged within 28 days of receiving notice of a decision, a period extended to 60 days by section 65(4) of the SRC Act. Section 29(7) of the AAT Act grants the Tribunal discretion to extend this time limit if satisfied it is reasonable to do so.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant received the reviewable decision on 9 December 2016, meaning the application for review should have been lodged by 7 February 2017. However, the application was filed on 18 August 2017, resulting in a delay of 193 days. The Applicant provided no explanation for this significant delay, stating only that he accepted the application should have been lodged earlier and making no submissions regarding the length of the delay. The Tribunal considered the lack of explanation and the substantial delay to be significant factors weighing against the exercise of its discretion. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had initially indicated satisfaction with the decision after it was explained to him, and had not actively contested it for a considerable period, leading the Respondent to presume the matter was concluded.

The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's application for an extension of time.