Selleck and Secretary, Department of Social Services
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1858
•22 June 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Selleck and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 1858
[2018] AATA 1858
22 June 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1). The Applicant sought to review a decision dated 16 February 2018, but lodged their application for second review 12 days after the prescribed 28-day time limit had expired. The Secretary, Department of Social Services, opposed the application for an extension of time. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties, including the Applicant's own testimony and submissions from the Secretary.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for the Applicant to lodge their application for review. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider several factors, including the length of the delay, the explanation provided for the delay, whether the Applicant was aware of their appeal rights, the merits of the substantive application, and whether granting an extension would prejudice the Respondent. The Tribunal also had to consider the presumption of receipt of postal articles under section 160 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) when assessing the timeliness of the Applicant's actions.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant came across as an honest witness, the delay of 12 days weighed against granting an extension. The Applicant's explanation for the delay, described as "hardships over five years" and entitlement to arrears, was found to be an unsatisfactory explanation for not applying within the statutory timeframe. Furthermore, the notice accompanying the first review decision clearly informed the Applicant of their right to appeal to the Tribunal and the applicable time limits. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be reasonable to extend the time for the Applicant to make an application for review.
Consequently, the Tribunal refused the Applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT1's decision dated 16 February 2018.
The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for the Applicant to lodge their application for review. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider several factors, including the length of the delay, the explanation provided for the delay, whether the Applicant was aware of their appeal rights, the merits of the substantive application, and whether granting an extension would prejudice the Respondent. The Tribunal also had to consider the presumption of receipt of postal articles under section 160 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth) when assessing the timeliness of the Applicant's actions.
The Tribunal reasoned that while the Applicant came across as an honest witness, the delay of 12 days weighed against granting an extension. The Applicant's explanation for the delay, described as "hardships over five years" and entitlement to arrears, was found to be an unsatisfactory explanation for not applying within the statutory timeframe. Furthermore, the notice accompanying the first review decision clearly informed the Applicant of their right to appeal to the Tribunal and the applicable time limits. Balancing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be reasonable to extend the time for the Applicant to make an application for review.
Consequently, the Tribunal refused the Applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT1's decision dated 16 February 2018.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Remedies
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
0
Parker v The Queen
[2002] FCAFC 133
Brown v Commissioner of Taxation
[1999] FCA 563
Re DHLD and Executive Director, Social Security Appeals Tribunal
[2010] AATA 377