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

This matter concerned an application by Ms Pigram for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Ms Pigram had initially sought review of a Centrelink decision to raise a debt against her for ABSTUDY. This internal review was affirmed by the Authorised Review Officer (ARO) on 27 November 2013. Ms Pigram then sought further review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT), which heard the matter on 10 February 2014 and affirmed the ARO's decision on 20 February 2014. Ms Pigram subsequently applied to the AAT on 16 August 2016, seeking review of the ARO decision, rather than the SSAT decision. The presiding SM, R W Dunne, considered the application in the Social Services & Child Support Division of the AAT.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review had been properly made, whether the application for review itself was properly made, and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time. This involved considering whether there was a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the application and whether Ms Pigram had reasonable prospects of success on the substantive application. The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Pigram had effectively applied for review of the SSAT decision and, if not, whether an extension of time should be granted under subsection 29(7) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).

The Tribunal applied principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment*, *Comcare v A’Hearn*, and *Phillips v Australian Girls’ Choir Pty Ltd*. These principles indicate that while there is no onus of proof on an applicant for an extension of time, the Tribunal must be positively satisfied that it is proper to grant the extension. Relevant factors include the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal noted that Ms Pigram believed she was appealing the ARO decision, but her appeal had been heard by the SSAT. The Tribunal found that Ms Pigram had not effectively applied for an extension of time to review the SSAT decision, and her application to the AAT was framed as a review of the ARO decision.

The application by Ms Pigram for an extension of time to apply to the Tribunal to review the SSAT decision made on 20 February 2014 was refused.