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

This matter concerned an application by Mr Thomas for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) on 28 June 2006. The application was heard by Brigadier AG Warner, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Mr Thomas had been determined to have been overpaid Disability Support Pension (DSP) and a debt of $7,741.28 was raised, a decision that had been affirmed by various levels of review, including the SSAT. Mr Thomas, who was 30 years old at the time of the hearing, did not attend and refused to engage in the proceedings, being represented by his mother.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Thomas an extension of time to lodge his application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. This required the Tribunal to consider the length of the delay, Mr Thomas's awareness of his appeal rights, the explanation for the delay, and the prospects of success of the substantive application. The Tribunal was guided by the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and subsequent cases, which require consideration of factors such as the applicant's actions, potential prejudice to the respondent, wider public prejudice, the merits of the substantive application, and fairness to other persons in a like position.

The Tribunal found that Mr Thomas's explanation for the significant delay in lodging his application for review was not satisfactory. While an acceptable explanation for delay is not a strict prerequisite for granting an extension, it is a relevant consideration. Weighing the length of the delay, the lack of a satisfactory explanation, and the limited prospects of success for the substantive application, the Tribunal concluded that it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Thomas's application for an extension of time to lodge his application for review of the SSAT decision dated 28 June 2006.