Stapleton and Optus Administration Pty Ltd (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Stapleton for an extension of time to lodge two applications for review concerning decisions made by Optus Administration Pty Ltd. The dispute involved Optus' refusal to accept liability for certain medical treatments, specifically physiotherapy and a hydrodilatation procedure, for an injury sustained by Mr Stapleton. Optus opposed the extension, arguing that the applications were lodged significantly out of time and that Mr Stapleton had not provided an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Stapleton an extension of time to lodge his review applications, which were approximately 10 to 12 months out of time. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the established principles for granting extensions of time, including those outlined in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*. These principles encompass the applicant's explanation for the delay, any actions that alerted the decision-maker to a potential review, prejudice to the respondent, the merits of the substantive applications, and considerations of fairness and public interest.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delay was substantial, Mr Stapleton's explanation, which centred on his need to obtain specialist legal advice to understand complex medical and legal issues surrounding his claim, was acceptable. The Tribunal noted that Mr Stapleton had a complex medical history dating back to 2006 and that the decisions under review involved nuanced medical opinions regarding the cause and appropriate treatment of his condition. The Tribunal also considered that Mr Stapleton had an existing related application before the Tribunal, suggesting he had not abandoned his intention to pursue his claim. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Optus would not suffer significant prejudice from the granting of the extension, as the same evidence would be considered in the current applications.

Consequently, the Tribunal granted Mr Stapleton an extension of time to lodge both applications for review. The Tribunal also made orders to link these new applications to his existing related application for review, facilitating a more efficient and comprehensive hearing of the matters.