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

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant, Ms Reilly, sought to have her delayed application for Parental Leave Pay (PPL) considered, having encountered significant difficulties in lodging her claim online and through other departmental channels. The Secretary of the Department of Social Services opposed the extension, primarily on the grounds that there was no record of an application being lodged before 21 December 2017.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for the applicant to lodge her application for review. This involved assessing the applicant's explanation for the delay, the prospects of success of her substantive claim, and any prejudice to the respondent or the public interest. The applicant contended that she had attempted to lodge her PPL application multiple times from April 2017 onwards, encountering technical difficulties with online portals and seeking assistance from Centrelink officers. She also cited personal difficulties, including domestic violence and psychological trauma, as contributing factors to the delay in providing evidence.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, particularly in light of the personal difficulties she experienced. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's case was entirely devoid of prospects of success, noting that if the applicant's evidence of attempting to lodge her claim earlier was accepted, it would indicate potential failings in the Department's systems. The Tribunal considered the potential prejudice to the respondent, concluding it was not unacceptable, and that exploring the applicant's systemic issues would be beneficial for other applicants facing similar challenges.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the interests of justice were better served by allowing the application to proceed to a full merits hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the application for an extension of time.