Schriever and Secretary, Department of Education, Science and Training

[2007] AATA 1395

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1395

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/1080

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		NICHOLAS SCHRIEVER

Applicant

And SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J G Short (Member)

Date11 May 2007

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal refuses the application for an extension of time.  

..............................................

J G SHORT
  (Member)

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time – delay approximately 2½ years – extension of time refused

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 29(4)

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd & Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 May 2007   Mr J G Short (Member)

1.      The application is for an extension of time within which to lodge an application for review of a decision by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the SSAT) dated 27 October 2004.  The decision affirmed a decision made by a Centrelink officer on 24 March 2004 to raise and recover a debt in the sum of $4,147.57.  Mr Schriever received notice of the decision of the SSAT on or about 27 October 2004.  He lodged his application for review and for an extension of time with this Tribunal on 3 April 2007.

2.      Mr Schriever told the Tribunal that he considers that the SSAT should have combined two courses of study when considering whether he had satisfied the requirement of full-time study because the two courses were similar in their nature.

3.      I have carefully perused the SSAT’s reasons for decision.  That Tribunal appears to have fully considered this issue.  I have been unable to identify any obvious error in the SSAT’s reasons for decision.

4.      Mr Schriever explained that his reason for the delay of approximately 2½ years in lodging an application for review, included a feeling of intimidation through the process of appearing before the SSAT, and the anticipated process of appearing before this Tribunal.  He also referred to an understanding, false as it turns out, that he would incur significant costs in applying before this Tribunal.  He also said that after working for a time at Centrelink, he considered that a favourable decision would have been fairer in his circumstances.

5.      The Secretary argued that no satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the application had been provided by Mr Schriever in this case.  While any perception of an intimidatory process at this Tribunal would be unfortunate, I do not consider that any such perception or a perception as to costs, adequately explains or justifies the significant delay in this case.

6.      I have considered all of the factors detailed in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd & Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (1984) 58 ALR 305 and have not been satisfied that it would be appropriate to extend the time for lodging an application for review at this Tribunal beyond the prescribed period.

7. Pursuant to s 29(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal refuses the application for extension of time.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr J G Short (Member)

Signed:         .............J Coulthard.....................................
  Associate

Date of Hearing  3 May 2007
Date of Decision  11 May 2007
Advocate for the Applicant       In person

Advocate for the Respondent   Ms M Boylan

Centrelink Legal Services Branch