Snell and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)
Case
•
[2019] AATA 3202
•26 August 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Snell and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 3202
[2019] AATA 3202
26 August 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The applicant sought to extend the time for lodging an application for a second review of a decision, with the respondent opposing the application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether to exercise its discretion under s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to grant this extension.
The Tribunal was required to consider whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for the applicant to make his application for review. In doing so, the Tribunal applied established principles for considering such applications, drawing on authorities such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Re Mulheron*. These principles include the length of the delay, the applicant's awareness of appeal rights and whether they rested on those rights, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal also noted that while an acceptable explanation for the delay is relevant, it is not an essential precondition for granting an extension.
In its consideration, the Tribunal found the delay of approximately one month to be relatively short and not inconsistent with the principle of finality in administrative decision-making, weighing in favour of granting the extension. The applicant had provided evidence of attempting to contact the Tribunal by phone shortly after receiving the decision, although the Tribunal's records did not fully corroborate this communication. Despite the lack of a fully satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, the Tribunal considered the other factors, including the relatively short delay and the absence of significant prejudice to the respondent, to be persuasive. Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.
The Tribunal was required to consider whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to extend the time for the applicant to make his application for review. In doing so, the Tribunal applied established principles for considering such applications, drawing on authorities such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Re Mulheron*. These principles include the length of the delay, the applicant's awareness of appeal rights and whether they rested on those rights, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal also noted that while an acceptable explanation for the delay is relevant, it is not an essential precondition for granting an extension.
In its consideration, the Tribunal found the delay of approximately one month to be relatively short and not inconsistent with the principle of finality in administrative decision-making, weighing in favour of granting the extension. The applicant had provided evidence of attempting to contact the Tribunal by phone shortly after receiving the decision, although the Tribunal's records did not fully corroborate this communication. Despite the lack of a fully satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay, the Tribunal considered the other factors, including the relatively short delay and the absence of significant prejudice to the respondent, to be persuasive. Ultimately, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Snell and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2019] AATA 3202
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Parker v The Queen
[2002] FCAFC 133
Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd
[2006] FCA 812
Lucic v Nolan
[1982] FCA 232