Serth and Wardell (Child support)

This matter concerned an objection by the mother to a decision regarding the percentage of care for a child. The Registrar initially submitted that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) lacked jurisdiction to hear the mother's application because the original decision was not a "care percentage decision" as defined, and a valid objection had not been made within the prescribed 28-day period. The Registrar later conceded that the Tribunal had jurisdiction but argued that the mother's objection was invalid due to not being in writing and being lodged late, necessitating the setting aside of the objection decision and remittal for reconsideration.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review the Registrar's decision, particularly given that the mother's objection was lodged more than 28 days after notification of the original decision and was not in writing. The Tribunal was required to determine if the objection decision itself, irrespective of its legal validity, provided the necessary jurisdictional foundation for review.

Deputy J Walsh P reasoned that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was established by the existence of the objection decision, not by its legal efficacy. The Tribunal's power to review an objection decision is triggered by the decision itself, even if that decision is later found to be flawed or based on an invalid objection. The Registrar's argument that the original decision was not a "care percentage decision" was not determinative of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the subsequent objection decision.

The Tribunal found that it did have jurisdiction in the matter. The decision under review was set aside and substituted, indicating that the Tribunal proceeded to consider the merits of the care percentage issue.