Penning and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Penning for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The original decision by the Child Support Registrar, made on 10 December 2020, was to credit $50,000 as a non-agency payment. Mr Penning lodged an application for review of this decision with Child Support on 9 November 2021, which was outside the prescribed 28-day period. Child Support refused to grant an extension of time on 22 November 2021. Mr Penning then lodged his application for review with the AAT on 20 March 2023, again outside the time limit, necessitating the current application for an extension of time.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Penning an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This involved considering the principles governing the exercise of discretion to allow an extension of time, as established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and applied in *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, and any prejudice to the other party or the wider public.

The tribunal accepted Mr Penning's stated reasons for the delay, which included a history of mental illness, panic disorder, depression, and family violence, rendering him unable to communicate effectively during the relevant periods. However, the tribunal found that these reasons did not adequately explain the significant delay of 468 days between Child Support's refusal to grant an extension of time and Mr Penning's application to the AAT. The tribunal concluded that Mr Penning had rested on his rights. Furthermore, while acknowledging some potential merit in the substantive application, the tribunal noted that Mr Penning had accepted a payment was made in lieu of child support when this was not the case, and that he had proceeded with his application contrary to advice. The tribunal considered that granting an extension would cause prejudice to the other party and undermine community expectations regarding the finality of administrative decisions.

Consequently, the tribunal refused to grant Mr Penning an extension of time to lodge his application for review.