Waak and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Mr Waak applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek review of a decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 17 July 2020. The Registrar's decision disallowed Mr Waak's objection to the refusal to credit certain payments made for his child's orthodontic treatment as non-agency payments. The application for extension was made on 10 September 2020, which was approximately 27 days after the prescribed 28-day period for lodging an application for review had expired.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Mr Waak's application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the Registrar's objection decision. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the relevant provisions of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, including the principles for exercising discretion to grant an extension of time as established in case law. The Tribunal also had to assess the merits of Mr Waak's substantive application and consider any prejudice to the other party and the public interest.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the prejudice to the other party and the public interest from granting an extension would be limited, Mr Waak had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. His previous attempts to seek review were either premature or incorrectly filed, and he did not act promptly once advised of the correct procedure. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that Mr Waak's substantive application had little merit. Specifically, while the orthodontic payments met the criteria for prescribed non-agency payments under section 71C of the Act, the Registrar had a discretion under section 71D to refuse to credit such amounts in special circumstances. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Registrar had appropriately exercised this discretion, as Mr Waak was claiming credit for expenses he was solely responsible for under an agreement with the orthodontist.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. The application for an extension of time was refused.