Nesson and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Nesson to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support objection decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 27 February 2019. The application for extension was made on 6 January 2020, approximately 283 days after Ms Nesson was notified of the objection decision on 1 March 2019. The Tribunal considered the application on the papers.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Ms Nesson's application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the child support objection 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 the prescribed 28-day period for lodging an application for review and the criteria for granting an extension of time.

In determining whether to grant the extension, the Tribunal applied the guiding principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* [1984] FCA 186, which require satisfaction that it is proper to grant an extension. The Tribunal considered a range of factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, prejudice to the other party, prejudice to the public, and fairness. Ms Nesson cited her demanding workload as a sole parent and full-time employee, the emergence of new information regarding her ex-partner's income from a company sale, and rumours of a higher sale price. The Tribunal found that while Ms Nesson had significant demands on her time, this was not an acceptable reason for failing to prioritise her application, especially as she had pursued other child support matters. The Tribunal also found that the additional information cited did not adequately explain the substantial delay. While acknowledging the application might have some merit concerning the ex-partner's income, property, and financial resources, the Tribunal found that the reasons for the delay were not satisfactory and that Ms Nesson had rested on her rights.

Weighing all the factors, including the significant delay, the lack of a satisfactory explanation for that delay, and the potential prejudice to the other parent, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused Ms Nesson's application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision.