Roth and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant, Ms Roth, sought to have her application for review of a Child Support Registrar's decision, made on 29 October 2021, considered despite the expiry of the 28-day lodgement period. The Registrar was the other party to the application.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Ms Roth an extension of time to lodge her application for review. In doing so, the Tribunal had to consider and balance various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, any prejudice to the other parent and the general public, and the overall fairness of granting an extension. The Tribunal was guided by established principles from cases such as *Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor* and *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*.

The Tribunal found that Ms Roth had provided a reasonable explanation for the short delay in lodging her application, as she had obtained relevant information shortly before the expiry of the lodgement period. However, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Ms Roth's substantive application as weak. Ms Roth sought to challenge the acceptance of an estimate of income of $0 for the other parent, arguing that evidence of a recent property purchase and loan indicated the estimate was false. The Tribunal noted that the assessment of income estimates focuses on taxable income and does not include other financial resources, and that the estimate would be reconciled with actual income tax returns. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that a change of assessment process would be a more appropriate avenue for Ms Roth to address concerns about the other parent's income, property, and financial resources. The Tribunal also found that granting an extension would cause some prejudice to the other parent by potentially altering an assessment that could otherwise be considered final, and prejudice to the general public by departing from established timeframes without a compelling reason.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time. While acknowledging the reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded that the merits of the substantive application were not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the prejudice to the other parent and the general public, particularly given the availability of alternative remedies.