Nalder and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for an extension of time made by Ms Nalder. Ms Nalder sought to have the AAT review a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 11 February 2019, which refused her earlier application for an extension of time to object to a child support assessment. The original child support assessment had been extended for Ms Nalder's daughter past her 18th birthday.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Ms Nalder's application for an extension of time to seek 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 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, particularly concerning applications made outside the prescribed time limits. The Tribunal was required to determine if it was proper to grant an extension, balancing factors such as the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the parties or the public.

The Tribunal reasoned that Ms Nalder's application was approximately 44 days late. While Ms Nalder claimed the delay was due to waiting for her daughter's school attendance records to demonstrate she was no longer in full-time education, the Tribunal found this explanation unsatisfactory. It noted that Ms Nalder had contacted the school earlier and that the Child Support Agency had already determined there was no merit to her objection, as the daughter was enrolled in Year 12 and her 18th birthday fell within the school year. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 186, which caution against granting extensions unless it is proper to do so, and considered the lack of merit in the substantive objection and the unsatisfactory reasons for the delay.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused Ms Nalder's application for an extension of time. It concluded that, on balance, it was not proper to grant the extension, given the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, the lack of merit in the underlying objection, and the potential prejudice to the general public in deviating from statutory timeframes.