Porawski and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) - [2025] ARTA 2298

Porawski and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2025] ARTA 2298 (1 August 2025)

Applicant: Ms Porawski

Respondent: Child Support Registrar

Other Parties: Not applicable

Tribunal Number: 2025/PC029784

Tribunal: General Member S Hoffman
Place:Perth
Date:1 August 2025

Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – particulars of the administrative assessment – application for extension of time – estimate of income – reconciliation process – family health and accommodation issues – financial prejudice to the other parent – decision under review affirmed

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

Ms Porawski and [Mr A] are the parents of [two named children]. Generally, the father is required to pay child support to the mother.
On 24 July 2023, an officer from Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made a decision to accept an estimate of income of $79,937 for the father, to be applied to the child support assessment from 8 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 (the original decision).
The mother lodged an objection to the original decision on 9 April 2024.
Generally, a person has 28 days in which to lodge an objection to a decision made by Child Support. Because of the time that had elapsed between the date of the original decision – which was 24 July 2023 – and 9 April 2024, the mother requested an extension of time (EOT) so her objection could be considered.
On 15 April 2025, a Child Support officer decided to refuse the EOT request (the EOT decision).
On 12 May 2025, the mother sought a review by this Tribunal of the EOT decision. The matter was heard on 30 July 2025.
The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 162), a copy of which had been provided to the mother before the hearing. She gave affirmed evidence via MS Teams audio (similar to a conference telephone).

ISSUES

The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act) and the (Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (the R & C Act).
The main issues which arise in this case are whether the mother lodged an objection within the 28-day timeframe; if not, why not; and can an EOT be granted.

CONSIDERATION

Legislation

Section 63B of the Assessment Act allows the Registrar (Child Support) to amend an assessment of child support which used an income estimate if certain criteria are met. There is a note that this provision does not limit the power under section 75 to amend assessments.
Section 75 of the Assessment Act allows the CSA to amend an administrative assessment as considered necessary to give effect to the Assessment Act or the R & C Act.
Part…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Porawski and Child Support Registrar (Child Support)

Details

AGLC: Porawski and Child Support Registrar (Child Support) [2025] ARTA 2298
Case: [2025] ARTA 2298
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Tribunal involved Ms Porawski, the mother of two children, challenging the refusal by Services Australia – Child Support of her request for an extension of time to object to an administrative assessment. The assessment was made on 24 July 2023, determining the father's child support income to be $79,937 for the period from 8 July 2023 to 30 June 2024. Ms Porawski lodged her objection on 9 April 2024, well beyond the statutory 28-day period, and subsequently sought an extension of time for her objection to be considered. Services Australia – Child Support refused her request for an extension on 15 April 2025, and Ms Porawski appealed this decision to the Tribunal, which was heard on 30 July 2025.

The central legal issues the Tribunal had to address were whether Ms Porawski's objection was lodged within the legally prescribed 28-day timeframe and, if not, whether the Tribunal could grant an extension of time for the objection. The Tribunal examined the statutory framework, including the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, to determine the validity of Ms Porawski's objection and the circumstances under which an extension might be granted. The Tribunal needed to consider the mother's evidence and any mitigating factors that could justify the delay in lodging the objection, such as family health and accommodation issues.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that Ms Porawski did not lodge her objection within the 28-day timeframe, and her reasons for the delay were not sufficient to warrant an extension of time. The Tribunal noted that Ms Porawski had not provided a compelling explanation for the delay beyond the family health and accommodation issues. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of Services Australia – Child Support to refuse the extension of time, holding that the statutory timeframes were clear and should be adhered to unless there were exceptional circumstances which were not present in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the review application, affirming the decision under review.

Orders