Tash and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2021] AATA 1300

Tash and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 1300 (9 April 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

EXTENSION APPLICATION

NUMBER:2021/SC020620

APPLICANT:  Mr Tash

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

DATE DECISION MADE:               09 April 2021

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time to apply to tribunal – no satisfactory explanation for the delay – no merit – prejudice – extension of time refused

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information so as not to identify involved individuals as required by subsections 16(2AB)-16(2AC) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

APPLICATION:

An extension application made on 14 January 2021 asking the AAT to consider the application for AAT first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 7 December 2020 despite the 28 day period for applying for review having ended.

EXTENSION OF TIME CRITERIA

In its assessment of this application, the tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, merits of the application and prejudice to all parties concerned; all essential criteria in the assessment of an extension of time application. [1]

[1] Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 186

DECISION:

The extension application is refused.  In summary, this is because; the tribunal is not satisfied an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking a review exists as the decision was electronically sent to Mr Tash on 7 December 2020[2].   The unavailability of legal counsel is not a cogent reason for delay.

[2] Folio 25 of the papers

The tribunal also finds the delay in seeking a review prejudices the other party who is entitled to consider the matter finalised after the expiry of the review period.

Further, in assessing the extension application, the tribunal considered the merits of the application and was not satisfied that merit exists.  This is because whilst always arguable, the issues at hand have been previously addressed by the tribunal (differently constituted[3]) for a child support period 1 July 2019 to 31 December 2021 and again by the Child Support Agency on two separate occasions. The tribunal is not required to forensically assess the matter for the purposes of this extension of time application[4], however, on review of the evidence before it, is satisfied the decision, (subject of this extension application),  has been sufficiently grounded in material reasonably capable of supporting it, resulting in a finding the merits are weak, at best.

[3] 5 May 2020

[4] [4] Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; 195 CLR 516 Per Brennan CJ and McHugh J at [3], [also Kirby J at 66]. Footnotes and citations omitted.

Redress can be sought administratively via the Child Support Agency if Mr Tash can demonstrate a change in circumstances as he claims. 

Finally, there is prejudice to the general public due to unnecessary administration costs which would not be afforded to other individuals in similar circumstances especially where the timeframe for review was clearly articulated in the decision statement by the Child Support Agency.[5]

[5] Folio 13 of the papers