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

This matter concerned an application by Ms. Abdulahi to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek review of a decision that she had incurred a Newstart Allowance debt of $13,336.45. The debt arose because her earnings from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection between January 2012 and September 2013 were not fully declared to Centrelink, leading to an overpayment of Newstart Allowance. The AAT was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Ms. Abdulahi an extension of time to lodge her application for review, which was made approximately one year and nine months after the original decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the exercise of its discretion under s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to extend the time for making an application for review. The Tribunal had to consider whether it was satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant such an extension, despite the significant delay. In determining this, the Tribunal was guided by principles established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Limited v Cohen*, which indicate that while special circumstances are not strictly required, an applicant must provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and demonstrate that it is fair and equitable to extend the time. The Tribunal also considered the prima facie rule that proceedings commenced outside the prescribed period are generally not entertained.

The Tribunal reasoned that Ms. Abdulahi had not provided a satisfactory explanation for her extensive delay in seeking review. She was aware of her obligation to report income changes and had received correspondence from Centrelink requesting verification of her earnings, to which she did not respond. Furthermore, she had not demonstrated any merit or prospect of success in her substantive application that would outweigh the significant delay and the prejudice to the public interest in an orderly conclusion to the process. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it would not be reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time. The Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review.