Penington and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Penington for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 16 January 2023. Ms Penington was the parent liable to pay child support for two children, who were in 50% care of each parent. The Registrar's decision, notified to Ms Penington on 17 January 2023, had partly allowed her objection, resulting in a reduction of her child support liability. Ms Penington lodged her application for AAT review on 28 February 2023, which was outside the prescribed 28-day period, necessitating the extension of time application.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Ms Penington an extension of time to lodge her application for review. In doing so, the tribunal had to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion to grant such extensions, as established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation*. These principles require a balancing of various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, prejudice to the other party and the public, and overall fairness.

The tribunal found that Ms Penington had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging her application. While she expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of the decision, stating that she believed she was owed money due to a system "glitch" and a lack of communication from Child Support, her concerns related to the ongoing payment of the reduced amount rather than a challenge to the merits of the objections officer's decision itself. The tribunal noted that the objections officer's decision was more favourable to Ms Penington, as it reduced her child support liability. Furthermore, the tribunal considered that granting an extension would prejudice the other parent, Mr A, and undermine public expectations regarding the finality of administrative decisions.

Consequently, the tribunal refused Ms Penington's application for an extension of time. The tribunal concluded that, despite any potential merit in reviewing the decision, it was not fair and equitable to grant the extension in the circumstances, particularly given the lack of an adequate explanation for the delay and the prejudice to the other parent and the public interest.