Stenberg and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Ms Stenberg applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 22 January 2019. The Registrar's decision had disallowed Ms Stenberg's objection to an earlier decision accepting an income estimate of $0 from Mr [A], the other parent, for child support assessment purposes from 29 August 2018. The application for review was lodged on 27 February 2019, which was outside the prescribed 28-day period.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Ms Stenberg's application for an extension of time to lodge her application for review of the child support objection decision. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the principles for exercising discretion to grant an extension of time, as established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*. These principles involve balancing various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, and any prejudice to the other party or the public.

The Tribunal found that Ms Stenberg's explanation for the approximately eight-day delay was reasonable, citing her fear of repercussions from Mr [A] due to a history of family violence and financial control, and her waiting for the outcome of a family violence intervention order hearing. However, the Tribunal also considered the merits of Ms Stenberg's substantive application. It found that Mr [A]'s $0 income estimate was accurate at the time it was submitted, supported by medical evidence of injury and confirmation from his former employer. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Stenberg's application for review had little merit and would not have good prospects of success.

While the Tribunal acknowledged that granting an extension would cause little prejudice to Mr [A] or the public, it ultimately refused the application. The Tribunal reasoned that it would not be fair to others in similar positions to grant an extension given the statutory time frame and the lack of merit in Ms Stenberg's application. Therefore, the AAT found it was not proper to grant the extension of time.