Shastri and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Shastri to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AATA) for review of decisions by a Child Support objections officer to refuse her applications for an extension of time to lodge objections. Ms Shastri sought to object to eight decisions made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) between April 2019 and February 2020, which allowed payments made by Mr Shastri towards the family home loan to be credited against his child support liability. These objections were lodged in June 2020, significantly outside the statutory 28-day time limit.

The AATA was required to determine whether to grant Ms Shastri an extension of time to lodge her objections. This involved considering the explanation for the delay, the merits of the proposed objections, any prejudice to the other party, and public interest considerations. The tribunal was guided by principles established in case law, which emphasise that while the interests of justice are paramount, there is a prima facie rule against entertaining proceedings commenced outside statutory periods. The tribunal was to assess whether the interests of justice favoured granting or refusing the extension in the specific circumstances.

The tribunal found that while Ms Shastri provided an explanation for her delay, citing health issues and dissatisfaction with a property settlement, she had not demonstrated that she was prevented from lodging her objections within the prescribed time frame. The CSA had provided clear notification of the decisions and the objection period, and Ms Shastri had previously engaged with the CSA on other child support matters. Furthermore, the tribunal considered the merits of the objections and concluded that they were unlikely to succeed, as Ms Shastri had, at the time the credits were made, consented to them being applied against Mr Shastri's liability. The tribunal also noted potential prejudice to Mr Shastri and the public interest in timely finality of child support matters.

Consequently, the tribunal concluded that granting the extensions of time would not be in the interests of justice. The tribunal affirmed the decisions of the objections officer to refuse the applications for an extension of time.