PQPD and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time by the Applicant, PQPD, to challenge a child support assessment determination made by the Child Support Registrar. The application was heard by Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member, of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal.

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 pursue his challenge to the child support assessment. This required the Tribunal to consider the general principles governing the exercise of discretion to grant an extension of time, including the reasons for the delay, the prospects of success in the substantive application, and any potential prejudice to the parties.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's explanation for a delay of 538 days, which included dealing with other court matters, mental health issues, caring responsibilities, a past workplace injury, and a misunderstanding of the urgency and potential consequences of the assessment. The Tribunal found that these explanations did not constitute a reasonable or satisfactory reason for the significant delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the potential prejudice to the Other Party, who had responded to the original objection in a timely manner and did not wish for the matter to be reopened after such a considerable lapse of time. While acknowledging the Applicant's stated prospects of success regarding the 2019-2020 tax year, the Tribunal found insufficient documentary evidence to confidently assess these prospects independently. Applying the principles from *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* (1984) 3 FCR 344, the Tribunal concluded that it would be neither proper nor just to grant the extension sought, emphasising the importance of complying with time limits.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Social Services and Child Support Division of the Tribunal dated 7 December 2021, which had refused to grant the Applicant an extension of time.