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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Stonebridge for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by AAT1 concerning a disability support pension. The Secretary, Department of Social Services, was the respondent. The core of the dispute was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for Stonebridge to seek a review of AAT1's decision, given that the substantive application was lodged significantly out of time.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time. This required the Tribunal to consider several factors, including the length of the delay, whether the applicant was aware of their appeal rights, the adequacy of any explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, the merits of the substantive application, and considerations of fairness between the applicant and others in a similar position. The Tribunal also had to determine the date on which Stonebridge was presumed to have received the AAT1 decision, applying the postal rule under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delay in lodging the application for extension of time was not considered significant in absolute terms, the purpose of the 28-day time limit for lodging appeals is to ensure finality in government decision-making, which weighed against granting the extension. Stonebridge was aware of her appeal rights and had received advice, but her explanation for the delay, attributing it to confusion and impairments that prevented her from thinking rationally, was not considered sufficient to overcome the factors weighing against an extension. The Tribunal noted that while an acceptable explanation for delay is not a strict pre-condition, the actions taken by the applicant are relevant. On balance, the Tribunal found that it would not be reasonable to extend the time for Stonebridge to make an application for review.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused to grant Stonebridge's application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of the AAT1 decision dated 28 February 2018.