Saylor and Child Support Registrar (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1940
•1 September 2025
Saylor and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1940 (1 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Mr Saylor
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Tribunal Number: 2025/BC030125
Tribunal: General Member H Casey
Place:Hobart
Date:1 September 2025
Application: An extension application made on 11 July 2025 asking the Tribunal to consider the application for review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 2 September 2024 despite the period for applying for review having ended.
Decision: The extension application is refused.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – change of assessment – special circumstances – lengthy delay in review request – mental health – recent change of financial circumstances – little merit – rested on his rights – extension of time refused
Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
This is a decision about whether an extension of time should be granted by the Tribunal so that Mr Saylor can seek review of a decision of Services Australia (Child Support). Mr Saylor is assessed to pay child support to Ms [A] for their child. Child Support made a decision on 17 July 2024 to change the child support assessment in the special circumstances of the case by setting Mr Saylor’s income to $137,384 for the period 11 June 2024 to 30 November 2025.
On 31 July 2024 Mr Saylor objected to that decision. On 2 September 2024 Child Support partly allowed his objection, and while the decision about his income was unchanged, the decision maker increased the self-support amount for Mr Saylor in the assessment, which had the effect of reducing the annual rate.
Mr Saylor applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision on 11 July 2025. As he had applied more than 28 days after being served with the decision dated 2 September 2024, he was required to lodge an extension of time application, which he did on the same date.
The Tribunal considered the application made by Mr Saylor and the papers provided by Child Support numbered 1–234 when making this decision. The Administrative Review Tribunal (Child Support) Practice Direction.pdf states that an extension application will usually be decided without a case event and in this matter the Tribunal has determined the extension application on the papers without holding a hearing.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in section 91 of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) and section 18 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act2024 (the ART Act). Subsection 18(3) of the ART Act requires that a person must lodge a review request with the Tribunal within 28 days after a notice of the decision of the Registrar had been served on them.
Where the period for lodgement has ended, section 91 of the Act provides that a person may make an application for review that includes a written application (the extension application) requesting the Tribunal to consider the application for review despite the ending of the period. The extension application must state the reasons for the person’s failure to apply for the review within the period.
The issue in this case is whether the Tribunal should accept the application for review despite it being made out of the timeframe provided in the ART Act.
CONSIDERATION
The Tribunal is satisfied, based on Child Support’s records in evidence and no evidence to the contrary from the applicant, that Mr Saylor was sent notification of the 2 September 2024 decision on that same date. Mr Saylor lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 11 July 2025, which at around 10 months later was well outside the 28-day timeframe provided by the legislation. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to whether an extension of time is granted.
When making this decision, the Tribunal considered the guiding principles for the exercise of the discretion to allow an extension of time as set out in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176. In that case the Federal Court said that an extension of time should not be granted unless it was proper to do so, noting that generally applications made outside of the prescribed time limit will not be considered.
When deciding whether to allow an extension of time, the Tribunal should consider and balance a range of factors, including:
(a) the reasons for the delay and whether the applicant rested on their rights;
(b) the merits of the substantive application;
(c) any prejudice to the other party as a result of the delay;
(d) any prejudice to the general public and the fairness in granting an extension of time to the applicant compared with other persons in a similar position; and
(e) whether it is proper to grant the extension of time.
The Tribunal has considered each of these factors below.
The reasons for the delay and whether Mr Saylor rested on his rights
Mr Saylor’s application for review and extension of time stated the following:
I don't believe the decision was in correct at the time, based on my income at the time the decision was made but due to my current financial situation I had to decrease my work hours due to my mental health from the marriage break down this has left me with very little money to live off after I contacted child support to notify that my income has changed in the lasty 6 months I was referred to the tribunal as they could not assist me. I'm reaching out to see if I could please ask for some help during this time as I don't know how else to manage this change.
I have had to take a major pay decrease due to my mental health This has had a very big impact on my finances leaving me very little to live off I wish to seek some help during this time as I'm not coping with day-to-day expenses.
Mr Saylor has not provided any reason for the lengthy delay in applying and has rested on his rights, although the Tribunal notes that it appears his reason to apply has only arisen more recently (in the past 6 months). As discussed below, there are other means by which Mr Saylor could seek to have his concerns addressed.
The merits of Mr Saylor’s application
The Tribunal does not need to determine whether Mr Saylor’s review would be successful in order to have merit, but only whether he has an arguable case on face value. Change of assessment in special circumstances is provided for in part 6A of the Assessment Act. The provisions allow a decision maker to depart from the assessment in special circumstances when it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to do so. The range of decisions that can be made under this process are broad and discretionary, and additional financial information provided on objection will often result in a different decision than what was originally determined.
However, Mr Saylor has stated that he does not believe the change of assessment decision was incorrect. Rather, his application relates to a more recent change of circumstances. The appropriate means of addressing new special circumstances after a decision is made to change the assessment is a new application for a change of assessment, which Mr Saylor can discuss with Child Support. Child Support can consider backdating the start of a new change of assessment decision up to 18 months prior to the date of application, although this is a discretionary decision.
Due to the discretionary nature of the decision Mr Saylor is seeking review of, there is potential merit in that new information could lead to a different decision being made, although details in Mr Saylor’s application are scant. In the context of his submission that the decision was correct, the Tribunal finds the application has little merit.
Prejudice to the other parent
If the application was to be accepted, there would likely be little prejudice to the other parent. The departure period in question is in the past 14 months and if the main change relates to Mr Saylor’s financial circumstances, Ms [A] may not have any difficulty providing relevant evidence.
Prejudice to the wider public and fairness
Mr Saylor has presented no good reason why his application should be accepted so far out of the usual 28-day timeframe compared to others in similar situations. While there is no broader prejudice to the public, the Tribunal considers that it would be inconsistent and unfair to grant an extension in these circumstances when others in a similar position would not be able to have their decisions reviewed.
Whether it would be proper to grant an extension of time
Weighing up all the relevant factors, in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal is not satisfied that it would be proper to grant Mr Saylor an extension of time. His application has little merit, he has no good reason for delay and has rested on his rights for an extensive period past the time to apply in October 2024. Mr Saylor’s application for an extension of time to seek review of the decision dated 2 September 2024 is therefore refused.
Mr Saylor is not prevented from applying to Child Support for a new change of assessment in special circumstances at any time if his circumstances have changed since the original decision was made.
DECISION
The extension application is refused.
0
1
0