Saad v Secretary, Department of Social Services

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr. Saad for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by the Secretary, Department of Social Services. Mr. Saad sought to appeal a decision regarding his entitlement to Disability Support Pension (DSP) payments while he was incarcerated. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr. Saad had provided sufficient reasons for the significant delay in lodging his appeal and whether granting an extension would be in the interests of justice.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether to grant Mr. Saad an extension of time to lodge his appeal, and in doing so, to consider the reasons for the delay, whether Mr. Saad had "rested on his rights," any prejudice to the Respondent, the interests of the public, and the substantial merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal was required to apply the principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* and *Crick and Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd*, which involve a balancing exercise of all relevant circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Saad's reasons for delay, namely his incarceration and alleged unawareness of appeal rights, were not persuasive. It noted that Mr. Saad had prior experience with the AAT and the correctional system, which provided avenues for lodging appeals even while in custody. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the merits of the substantive application and concluded that Mr. Saad's prospects of success were very low, as legislation clearly states that individuals are not entitled to DSP payments while in custody. The Tribunal also noted that Mr. Saad had alternative avenues to seek a waiver or reduction of the debt.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr. Saad's application for an extension of time. The decision was based on the assessment that the reasons for the delay were not sufficiently compelling, and crucially, that the substantive application had little prospect of success, making it contrary to the requirements of good government to allow the appeal to proceed.