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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Murdoch for an extension of time to make a second-tier application to the Department of Social Services. The application was heard by Ms S Taglieri SC of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Murdoch an extension of time to lodge his second-tier application. This required the Tribunal to consider the reasons provided by Mr Murdoch for the delay and whether he had an arguable case on the merits of his underlying claim.

The Tribunal considered Mr Murdoch's evidence that he was a busy, self-employed contractor with no administrative support and that he cared for his daughter, which left him little time to file the application. He initially claimed the delay was three or four days but conceded it was approximately 16 days. Mr Murdoch also relied on an alleged statement by Mr Sparkes, a legal representative from a previous proceeding, suggesting that Centrelink would automatically arrange payments after a prior decision regarding percentage of care. The Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that Mr Murdoch had not adequately explained why he believed this understanding would apply to future claims beyond the specific period addressed in the prior decision. Furthermore, Mr Murdoch acknowledged he could have followed up with Centrelink sooner. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Murdoch had an arguable case concerning special circumstances, referencing a previous decision in *Germain and Secretary, Department of Social Services* [2016] AATA 541, which dealt with similar arguments for late lodgement of Family Tax Benefit claims.

Ultimately, although the delay was short and there was no clear prejudice to the Respondent, the Tribunal found Mr Murdoch's explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory and that he had failed to identify an arguable case on the merits. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.