Meriwether and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2021] AATA 2722

Meriwether and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 2722 (18 June 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2020/BC020242

APPLICANT:  Miss Meriwether

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Member J Thomson

DECISION DATE:  18 June 2021

DECISION:

The decision under review is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – refusal to grant an extension of time to object – no satisfactory explanation for the delay – no evidence of merit – prejudice to the other party – 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 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

BACKGROUND

1. Miss Meriwether seeks review of a decision made by the Child Support Agency (the Agency) on 12 November 2020. This decision refused her application dated 27 October 2020 for an extension of time to object to an earlier decision of the Agency dated 4 June 2020.

2. The Tribunal listed the matter for hearing on 17 May 2021. Miss Meriwether was given notice of the time and date for the hearing but notified the Tribunal registry by email dated 14 May 2021 that she would not be attending the hearing and did not attend the hearing.

3. The Tribunal has therefore proceeded to consider her application on the papers provided by the Department, Exhibit 1.

4. The Agency’s papers contained in Exhibit 1 disclosed the following history.

5. On 16 April 2020 Miss Meriwether applied to the Agency for a change of assessment on the following grounds:

   ·The costs incurred by her in spending time with or communication with her daughter, [Child 1], significantly affected the cost of maintaining [Child 1], (the ground commonly referred to as Reason 1);

   ·Her necessary expenses for self- support significantly reduced her ability to support [Child 1] (the ground commonly referred to as Reason 7); and

   ·The income, property and financial resources of the other parent, Mr [A], made the administrative assessment of child support unfair (the ground commonly referred to as Reason 8A).

6. On 4 June 2020, an Agency delegate, [Mr B], made a decision to refuse Miss Meriwether’s application, finding that none of the grounds upon which she relied had been established.

7. The Agency sent Miss Meriwether a letter on 4 June 2020 notifying her of its decision dated 4 June 2020, including her objection rights, and enclosing a copy of the decision.

8. On 16 June 2020, Miss Meriwether sent an email to the Agency, relevantly, acknowledging her receipt of the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020.

9. On 18 October 2020, Miss Meriwether sent the Agency an email objecting to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020, citing as her ground for objection that [Mr B] had not taken into account her costs of spending time with or communication with [Child 1], in particular, the costs of her related air fares of spending time, or communicating with [Child 1], but provided no particulars of those costs or an explanation for her delay in lodging her objection to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020 outside the statutory 28-day period for doing so.

10. On 26 October 2020, the Agency sent Miss Meriwether a letter requesting her to provide an explanation for her failure to lodge her objection to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020 within 28 days of her receipt of the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020.

11. On 27 October 2020, Miss Meriwether sent an email to the Agency advising that  her reason for her delay in lodging her objection was that she had not been aware of the Agency’s objection process at the time she received a copy of the Agency decision of 4 June 2020, but otherwise, did not offer any explanation for her delay in lodging her objection to that decision.

12. On 4 November 2020, the Agency sent a further letter to Miss Meriwether requesting, relevantly, that she provide particulars of the travel related costs to which she referred in her objection email dated 18 October 2020 to satisfy the Agency that her case had merit sufficient to justify an alternate decision to that reached by [Mr B] in the Agency decision of 4 June 2020.

13. On 5 November 2020, Miss Meriwether responded to the Agency’s letter of 4 November 2020, relevantly, disputing the Agency’s request for the further information referred to in its letter of 4 November 2020, and requesting an extension of time to provide further evidence upon her return from leave on 5 December 2020.

14. On 12 November 2020, the Agency sent Miss Meriwether a letter notifying her of its decision to refuse her request for an extension of time to lodge her objection to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020, citing, as its reasons for the refusal, Miss Meriwether’s failure to provide an acceptable explanation for her failure to lodge her objection within the prescribed period, and her failure to provide further evidence of her costs incurred in spending time with, or communication with her daughter, [Child 1], as requested by the Agency in its letters referred to above, to establish the merit or otherwise of her case on objection.

15. On 16 November 2020, Miss Meriwether sent the Agency a further email, relevantly requesting it to cease all collection and further actions pending her appeal to the Tribunal being addressed.

16. Miss Meriwether did not attend the Tribunal hearing on 17 May 2021, and there was no evidence before the Tribunal to explain her delay in lodging her objection to the Agency decision of 4 June 2020, nor was there any evidence of her costs of spending time with, or communicating with, [Child 1] upon which the Tribunal could make a determination as to the merits of her case on objection.

17. The Tribunal also considers that the other party, Mr [A], is entitled to rely on the decision made by the Agency on 4 June 2020 and expect certainty and finality. The Tribunal considers the granting of an extension of time for Miss Meriwether to object to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020, particularly after such a long period of delay, would prejudice Mr [A] and would not be in the best interests of Justice.

18. Parliament has seen fit to set a 28-day time limit for the lodgement of objections so that parents (and the Agency) can act with certainty as to the outcome when the objection period has elapsed. The public has an interest in reviews of decisions made by the Agency being performed in a manner that ensures all applicants are treated fairly and equally. Accordingly, the extension of time for an objection is not to be automatically granted.

19. The Tribunal has found that Miss Meriwether has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging her objection to the Agency’s decision of 4 June 2020 or to provide evidence to suggest that her case on objection has merit, and concludes the interests of justice are best served by refusing to grant an extension of time.

20. As the Tribunal has reached the same conclusion as the Agency in its decision of 12 November 2020, the Tribunal affirms that decision.

DECISION

The decision under review is affirmed.