Masters and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2018] AATA 4467

Masters and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2018] AATA 4467 (25 October 2018)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2018/PC014799

APPLICANT:  Mr Masters

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Deputy President J Walsh

DECISION DATE:  25 October 2018

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the necessary extension of time within which to object be granted.

CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – refusal to grant an objection of time to lodge an objection – reasonable explanation for the delay – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed 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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The applicant father seeks review of a CSA decision dated 16 July 2018 refusing to grant him an extension of time within which to object to a decision of 8 January 2013 to accept the mother’s child support application for their son. The father had not objected until July 2018, well outside the statutory 28-day period allowed.

2. In the ordinary course, an extension of time of some five years or more would have little prospect of being favourably considered. The law imposes time limits for lodging objections for good reason. However, there is power to extend time in an appropriate case. 

3. I conducted a directions hearing on 26 September 2018 during which the father explained his case. He consented to me making a decision without a formal hearing, as subsequently did the CSA. The father’s case is that he and the mother were a long-term de facto couple until they separated in September 2016. Apart from three months from September to December 2016, their son has always lived with him. He was unaware of any child support case in 2013, or indeed at any earlier time. His position is simple; he says the mother made a false child support claim in January 2013 and gave the CSA an incorrect address for him. He was thus unaware of any child support case. He did not recall being contacted by the CSA on 8 January 2013 to discuss the mother’s claim; indeed he denied it was him who spoke with the CSA on that date. He says a fraud has been perpetrated.

4. The father explained that from late 2012, the parents lived at [Address 1] and referred to a tenancy agreement to support his claim. The [Address 2] the CSA notice was sent to in January 2013 was their previous address. He did not receive that notice. I also note the material before me includes a further joint tenancy agreement in October 2014 which tends to indicate the parents were together at that stage.

5. I am prepared to accept that the father was simply unaware of any child support case until several years after January 2013. In my view, this is a case where the interests of justice require that the father be afforded the opportunity to have the substance of his position considered and determined. It follows that, in the particular circumstances here, I consider the appropriate decision is to grant the necessary extension of time.           

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that the necessary extension of time within which to object be granted.