Regent and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Mr Regent applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 29 September 2017. The Registrar's decision had partially allowed Mr Regent's objection to an earlier decision that set his adjusted taxable income (ATI) at $168,000 for child support purposes. The application for extension was considered by the AAT on 22 February 2018.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Regent's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the objection decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the statutory provisions governing applications for review and extensions of time, as well as the guiding principles for exercising discretion in such matters. The Tribunal was required to balance various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the parties or the public.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, which caution against granting extensions unless it is proper to do so. The Tribunal found that Mr Regent's explanation for the delay, citing confusion between himself and his representative, was not a reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Mr Regent's substantive application, considering his arguments regarding his income, property, financial resources, and the special needs of his children. The Tribunal found that Mr Regent had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Child Support Agency had incorrectly assessed his financial information or that his children had special needs beyond the ordinary. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the substantive application had little merit.

The Tribunal determined that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to seek review of the objection decision made on 29 September 2017 was refused.