Thornill and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time made by Ms Thornill to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to seek a review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar. The Registrar had, on 18 February 2022, disallowed Ms Thornill's objection to a decision made on 24 January 2022 to accept her request to opt out of Child Support collection and discharge arrears of $3,517.86. Ms Thornill lodged her application for review, including the extension request, on 10 June 2022, well outside the prescribed 28-day period.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Thornill should be granted an extension of time to lodge her application for review of the Registrar's decision. This required the Tribunal to consider the provisions of section 29 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* and section 91 of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988*, which govern the time limits for lodging review applications and the process for seeking an extension.

In determining whether to grant the extension, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and subsequent cases, which require a balancing of various factors. These include the reasons for the delay, any prejudice to the other party, the merits of the substantive application, and whether it is proper to grant the extension. The Tribunal found that Ms Thornill had not provided a satisfactory explanation for her delay, noting that she was aware of her review rights and had not actively pursued them. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that her substantive application lacked merit, as the child support assessment period had ended by the time the review was sought, and the relevant provisions of the *Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988* meant there was no administrative remedy available to her.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Ms Thornill's application for an extension of time.