Summers and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Summers for an extension of time to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, dated 28 February 2019, disallowed Mr Summers' objection to an earlier decision that upheld the child support formula. Mr Summers sought to have the AAT consider his application for review despite the statutory time limit for lodging such an application having expired.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Mr Summers an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This involved considering the established legal principles governing such applications, including the need for a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, potential prejudice to the other party, and any relevant public interest considerations. The Tribunal was guided by case law, including *Lucic v Nolan*, *Martinsen v Secretary, Department of Family & Community Services*, *Gallo v Dawson*, and *Hunter Valley Developments P/L v Cohen*, which outline the factors to be weighed in such circumstances.

The Tribunal found that Mr Summers had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging his application. While he cited general anxiety and depression related to dealings with government departments, the Tribunal considered that he had effectively elected not to pursue the matter within the prescribed time. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed that the substantive application had little merit, as Mr Summers appeared to be seeking redress for issues related to a family law property division, which were distinct from child support assessments. The Tribunal also noted potential prejudice to the other parent, who was entitled to rely on the finality of the decision after the objection period expired, and the public interest in timely reviews and certainty in child support matters.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the interests of justice were best served by refusing to grant the extension of time. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused.