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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Rahimi (the Applicant) for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 5 May 2017. The AAT had affirmed a decision that the Applicant was not qualified to receive a Disability Support Pension. The Applicant lodged his application for extension of time and the substantive application for review some 231 days, or over seven months, out of time. The Respondent was the Secretary, Department of Social Services.

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 his application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. This required the Tribunal to consider the extent of the delay, whether there was a persuasive explanation for the delay, whether the Applicant had rested on his rights, and the merits of the substantive application.

The Tribunal considered the principles established in cases such as *Tran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which hold that the longer the delay, the more persuasive the explanation must be. While acknowledging the Applicant's submissions regarding a lack of English fluency and mental health concerns, the Tribunal was not persuaded that these provided an adequate or persuasive explanation for the seven-month delay, particularly as the Applicant was assisted by his wife, who reads English. The Tribunal also found little evidence that the Applicant had actively asserted his rights during the period of delay. Furthermore, upon reviewing the merits of the substantive application, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not provided evidence of additional medical conditions that were not considered by the AAT, and that the medical evidence provided related to current conditions rather than those at the time of the original decision.

The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent's submission that if a medical condition has progressed since the time of the original application, the appropriate course is for the applicant to make a fresh claim. Accordingly, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time.