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

This matter concerned an application for a second review by Mr Morgan, who receives a disability support pension. Two debts were raised against Mr Morgan by the Department of Social Services due to alleged overpayments of his pension, which he argued were attributable to administrative errors by the Department. While the Department initially waived these debts on the grounds of special circumstances, a subsequent review by an authorised review officer affirmed the waiver. Mr Morgan then sought a review by the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal, which set aside the authorised review officer's decision and substituted a decision that the debts be waived under section 1237A of the *Social Security Act 1991* (Cth), finding the debts were incurred solely due to administrative errors and that Mr Morgan received the monies in good faith. Mr Morgan subsequently sought a second review by the General Division of the Tribunal, but his application was lodged late.

The primary legal issue before the General Division was whether to grant an extension of time for Mr Morgan to lodge his application for a second review. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider established principles governing the exercise of discretion to extend time, including whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the parties, and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also had to consider whether extending time would be in the interests of justice and whether the applicant had rested on his rights.

The Tribunal noted that while Mr Morgan had a preference for postal communication due to a medical impairment, and the period out of time was not significant, there was no utility in extending the time for the application. The Tribunal reasoned that Mr Morgan had already succeeded at every stage of review, with the debts being waived and reimbursed. Although Mr Morgan expressed a grievance regarding the Department's conduct, the Tribunal found that a second review would not provide him with any practical benefit and would incur unnecessary costs for both Mr Morgan and the Respondent, and potentially the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal concluded that it was not in Mr Morgan's interests to extend the time, as the proceedings had become futile, despite acknowledging his earnest belief that he had not been treated properly.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Morgan's application for an extension of time to lodge his second review application.