Neville and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

In Neville and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2019] AATA 1745, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Neville for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, notified to Mr Neville on 13 December 2018, partly allowed Mr Neville's objection to an earlier change of assessment decision. Mr Neville contacted the AAT on 23 January 2019, lodging his review request and an application for an extension of time on 4 February 2019, well after the 28-day statutory period for lodging an application for review had expired.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Mr Neville an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the Registrar's decision. This required the tribunal to consider the provisions of section 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which mandates a 28-day period for lodging review requests, and section 91 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, which allows for applications to be treated as if duly lodged upon a request for an extension of time. The AAT was required to determine if it was proper, fair, and equitable to grant such an extension.

The AAT applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* (1984) and *Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation* (1991), which require a balancing of various factors when considering an extension of time. These factors include the need for an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether it is fair and equitable to extend the time. While Mr Neville cited the Christmas break, childcare responsibilities, and the time taken to seek advice as reasons for the delay, the tribunal found these explanations unsatisfactory, particularly as he was aware of his review rights and the time limit. Although the AAT acknowledged that Mr Neville's grounds for review had some merit, it concluded that, in the absence of an acceptable explanation for the significant delay, it was not fair and equitable to grant the extension.

Consequently, the AAT refused Mr Neville's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the Child Support Registrar's decision.