Mulder and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by Mr Mulder for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar had refused Mr Mulder's earlier application for an extension of time to object to a change in child support assessments. Mr Mulder sought to have this refusal decision reviewed by the AAT, but his application to the AAT was lodged significantly outside the prescribed time limit.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Mr Mulder an extension of time to apply for a review of the Registrar's refusal decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the relevant provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which stipulate that applications for review must generally be made within 28 days of notification of a decision, and that extensions of time can be sought under section 91 of the Act. The Tribunal was required to exercise its discretion under subsection 92(1) of the Act, guided by principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, which require consideration of various factors including the reasons for delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the other party.

In its reasoning, the AAT acknowledged that Mr Mulder's application to the Tribunal was approximately 403 days out of time. While the Tribunal accepted Mr Mulder's explanation for the delay – that the refusal letter from the Child Support Agency did not inform him of his appeal rights to the AAT, and he was only made aware of this possibility later – it found that the substantive application had little merit. The AAT noted that the Child Support Agency had previously considered Mr Mulder's reasons for objecting late to the original assessment change and had found them to be without merit, citing a lack of evidence and the agency's own attempts to contact Mr Mulder. The Tribunal concluded that even if it were to grant the extension of time to review the refusal decision, it was unlikely to grant the initial extension of time to object to the assessment change, thus rendering the current application for review of the refusal largely futile.

Consequently, the AAT refused Mr Mulder's application for an extension of time to seek a review of the Child Support Registrar's decision. The Tribunal found that while the reasons for the delay were satisfactory, the lack of merit in the underlying objection meant that it was not proper to grant the extension, particularly given the significant delay and potential prejudice to the Child Support Agency.