Sedgemore and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2023] AATA 4003

Sedgemore and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2023] AATA 4003 (3 October 2023)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

REVIEW NUMBER:  2023/BC025980

APPLICANT:  Mr Sedgemore

OTHER PARTIES:  Child Support Registrar

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Ellis

DECISION DATE:  03 October 2023

DECISION:

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that as Mr Sedgemore submitted an objection within the relevant timeframe set out in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 an extension of time is not required.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – refusal to grant an extension of time to object – departure determination – objection submitted within relevant timeframe – extension of time not required – decision under review set aside and substituted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Sedgemore and [Ms A] are the parents of [Child 1] (born October 2010).  There has been a child support assessment in place since 6 August 2020 and Mr Sedgemore is the parent liable to pay child support under the assessment.

2. On 8 August 2022 [Ms A] applied to Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) for a change to the assessment on the basis of a parent’s income, property and financial resources or earning capacity (the grounds commonly known as Reasons 8A & 8B).

3. On 17 November 2022 Child Support made the decision to change the assessment so that for the period from 24 March 2022 to 31 July 2024 the adjusted taxable income of Mr Sedgemore is set at $80,000 (the original decision).

4. On 7 February 2023 Mr Sedgemore objected to this decision and as his objection was not made within the prescribed period he applied to Child Support for an extension of time on the same date.

5. On 21 March 2023 Child Support refused the request for an extension of time and on 19 April 2023 Mr Sedgemore sought a review of the refusal decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

6. The Tribunal conducted a hearing into the application on 3 October 2023.  Mr Sedgemore was represented by [Mr B].  Mr Sedgemore and [Mr B] gave evidence on affirmation by Microsoft Teams audio.  Child Support provided the Tribunal and the parties with papers relevant to the matter (330 pages).  Prior to the hearing the Tribunal received additional evidence from Mr Sedgemore and a copy was distributed to the parties (A1–A3).

ISSUE

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act).

2. The issue which arises in this case is whether or not to grant Mr Sedgemore’s request for an extension of time to lodge an objection to the original decision.

CONSIDERATION

1. Part VII of the Act is about the procedures related to objections made for certain decisions. Section 81 is about time limits on lodging objections and provides that a person has 28 days in which to lodge an objection after a notice of the decision is served on them. Section 82 provides for a person to apply for an extension of time to lodge an objection after the 28‑day period has elapsed. Section 83 requires Child Support to either grant or refuse an extension of time application and serve notice in writing of the decision.

2. In the event Child Support refuses the extension of time application, the person applying may then apply to the Tribunal for review (item 1 of the table in subsection 89(1) of the Act).

3. The Tribunal finds Mr Sedgemore was advised about the outcome of the original decision by post in a letter from Child Support dated 17 November 2022.  Under provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Evidence Act 1995, he was therefore taken to be served with written notice of this decision by 5 December 2022.  For it to be lodged within time Mr Sedgemore should have submitted his objection to Child Support by 2 January 2023.

4. Mr Sedgemore told the Tribunal that he had found it difficult to submit an objection because of a separate property settlement process which had caused him significant mental health issues.  Mr Sedgemore said he also found it frustrating dealing with Child Support particularly because he had two separate child support cases in place involving different children and this made him stressed.  Mr Sedgemore informed the Tribunal that despite his circumstances he nonetheless submitted earlier objections related to changes of assessment for both cases but for some reason these had been withdrawn.  Mr Sedgemore said he thought the withdrawal was in relation to a care matter which he had also been managing.

5. The Tribunal notes in evidence that Mr Sedgemore initially lodged an objection received by Child Support on 14 December 2022.  In this written objection Mr Sedgemore states, “I would like to request an extension relating to my case … for [Ms A] and [Ms C] in order to provide further evidence”.  The written objection refers to his financial circumstances as well as details relevant to both changes of assessment.

6. The Tribunal further notes that during a conversation with a child support officer on 1 February 2023 in relation to this objection Mr Sedgemore confirms the objection related to both changes of assessment.  Mr Sedgemore was advised that his objection as it related to the decision on the change of assessment matter with [Ms C] was out of time and he would need to submit and extension of time to object.  Mr Sedgemore was not told his objection relating to the decision on the change of assessment matter with [Ms A] was out of time.  In a further conversation on 6 February 2023 between a child support officer and a person acting as a representative for Mr Sedgemore the representative was advised to submit further extensions of time for both change of assessment matters.  The representative also states that an objection relating to a care matter will be withdrawn.

7. The Tribunal is satisfied Mr Sedgemore first lodged an objection on 14 December 2022 in relation to the original decision made on 17 November 2022 and this could reasonably be considered as a valid objection.  There is no evidence indicating Mr Sedgemore withdrew this objection and it is unclear why Mr Sedgemore was later told to submit a further objection with an extension of time given his initial objection was not out of time.

8. The Tribunal finds that as Mr Sedgemore submitted his objection within the stipulated timeframe in the Act an extension of time is therefore not required.

DECISION

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and, in substitution, decides that as Mr Sedgemore submitted an objection within the relevant timeframe set out in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 an extension of time is not required.