Muller and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Muller for an extension of time to seek review of a child support decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 12 March 2019. Mr Muller sought to challenge the Registrar's decision to disallow his objection regarding a child support assessment for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018, which resulted in an additional child support liability and a penalty for underestimating his income. The application for extension of time was made on 16 May 2019, approximately 21 days after the prescribed 28-day period for lodging a review application had expired.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Muller's request for an extension of time to apply for a review of the objection decision. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the statutory provisions governing applications for review and extensions of time, as well as the guiding principles for exercising discretion in such matters. These principles, derived from case law such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, involve balancing various factors including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the parties or the public.

The Tribunal found that Mr Muller had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his application. While Mr Muller claimed to have received the objection decision notice on 8 April 2019, the Tribunal applied presumptions under the *Evidence Act 1995* to determine that he was deemed to have been served by 28 March 2019, making his application significantly out of time. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Mr Muller's substantive application and concluded it had little prospect of success, as the Child Support Agency had correctly reconciled his income in accordance with the *Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989*. Although minimal prejudice was found to the other party or the public, the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay and the absence of merit in the underlying application weighed heavily against granting the extension.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. The application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision was refused.