Sharma and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) dated 15 June 2018. The applicant, Ms. Sharma, sought carer payments for her daughter, which were initially granted in 2010. The Department of Social Services (the Respondent) opposed the extension of time, and alternatively, argued that the application should be treated as one for reinstatement of the original application, which was also opposed.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was an acceptable explanation for the significant delay in lodging the appeal, whether the Respondent would be prejudiced by granting an extension, whether the applicant had rested on her rights, and whether the substantive application had merits. The Tribunal was required to consider these factors in light of the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and the overarching considerations of fairness between the applicant and other individuals in similar circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging her appeal, which was filed on 27 July 2020, over two years after the AAT1 decision. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been aware of the AAT1 decision and the potential for further appeal. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the substantive application lacked merits, particularly in light of the applicant's failure to disclose significant assets, including multiple properties, which led to the suspension and cancellation of her carer payments and the assessment of a substantial overpayment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it would be against the interests of justice to grant the extension of time.

The application for an extension of time was refused.