Phromkamon and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Phromkamon for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Secretary, Department of Social Services. The Department had raised a debt of $5,874.10 against the applicant for Austudy payments received between July 2014 and June 2015. The applicant sought review of this decision, but her application was lodged approximately 22 months after the prescribed time limit had expired.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge her application for review. This required the Tribunal to consider various factors commonly applied in such applications, including the length of the delay, the reasons for that delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal. The applicant had indicated that her delay was due to a lack of awareness of certain reporting requirements, rather than any dishonest intent.

The Tribunal noted that it could extend the time for lodgement if satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances. In assessing this, the Tribunal referred to established principles, including those outlined in *Twentyman v Secretary, Department of Social Services*, which require consideration of the length of and reasons for the delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the appeal. Despite acknowledging the applicant's candour and impression of lacking ill intent, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was reasonable to grant the extension. The applicant's application for an extension of time was refused.