Rulad and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Rulad for an extension of time to object to a departure determination made by the Child Support Registrar. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether to grant this extension.

The legal issues before the AAT were whether Mr Rulad had provided adequate reasons for the delay in lodging his objection and, if so, whether it was fair and equitable to grant an extension of time. The Tribunal was required to consider the principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, which emphasize that the prescribed period for lodging an objection is not to be disregarded and that extensions should only be granted when the decision-maker is positively satisfied it is proper to do so.

The Tribunal applied a multi-factor test, considering the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, public interest issues, and the merits of the case. Mr Rulad candidly admitted receiving the departure determination within the 28-day period. His explanation for the delay centred on his difficulty understanding child support decisions and his struggles to engage with a third-party organisation, "My Child Support," which ultimately lodged the objection on his behalf. While the Tribunal found Mr Rulad to be a genuine and credible witness, it noted that the explanation for the delay, primarily attributed to the actions of "My Child Support," was not compelling. The Tribunal considered that the merits of Mr Rulad's case, while present, were not sufficiently strong to outweigh the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay.

The Tribunal concluded that adequate reasons for the delay had not been provided and that it was not fair and equitable to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the decision to refuse the extension of time was affirmed.