Syverson and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Syverson to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar's decision, made on 18 June 2018, concerned an objection by Ms Syverson regarding a child support assessment for her two children. The Registrar had allowed Ms Syverson's objection, increasing the assessed adjusted taxable income of Mr Syverson, the other parent, to $210,000 from 11 January 2018 to 31 December 2020. Ms Syverson sought to appeal this decision, but her application to the AAT was lodged on 16 December 2018, significantly outside the prescribed 28-day time limit.

The AAT was required to determine whether to grant Ms Syverson an extension of time to lodge her application for review. This involved considering the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, any prejudice to the other party, prejudice to the public interest, and overall fairness. The statutory time limit for seeking review of an objection decision is 28 days from the date of receipt of the decision, as stipulated by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

The Tribunal found that Ms Syverson's explanation for the delay, which centred on her not receiving the full notice of the decision until 13 December 2018, was not satisfactory. Evidence indicated that Ms Syverson had been aware of the objection decision and its contents, including the income set for Mr Syverson and the resulting maintenance liability, from at least 9 July 2018, when she wrote to the Department referencing the decision. The Tribunal noted that the child support assessment notices, which Ms Syverson claimed were missing, were consequential to the objection decision and not part of it. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Ms Syverson's grounds for seeking review, relating to superannuation contributions and a property purchase by Mr Syverson, lacked strong merit, particularly as the property purchase occurred after the objection decision. The Tribunal also considered that granting an extension would cause prejudice to Mr Syverson, who would reasonably rely on the established assessment, and would be unfair to others in similar positions who adhere to time limits.

Consequently, the AAT refused Ms Syverson's application for an extension of time. The Tribunal concluded that there were no satisfactory reasons for the delay, the substantive application had little merit, and granting an extension would not be fair.