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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Respondent, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, opposed the application. The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant the extension of time pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

In considering the application, the Tribunal applied established principles for determining whether to grant an extension of time, drawing on authorities such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen* and *Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation*. These principles include the length of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the applicant's awareness of appeal rights, any prejudice to the respondent or the public, the merits of the substantive application, and fairness to other persons in a like position. The Tribunal noted that while an explanation for delay is relevant, it is not an essential precondition for success.

The Tribunal found that the delay of three weeks and five days was relatively short, and the Applicant had provided an explanation for the delay related to significant health issues, which the Tribunal accepted could have impacted his ability to lodge the application in time. However, the Tribunal also found that the Applicant was aware of his appeal rights and the time limits for lodging an application, as this information was provided with the decision he sought to review. The Tribunal considered that the absence of prejudice to the Respondent was not sufficient in itself to justify granting an extension. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that granting the extension of time was reasonable in all the circumstances, particularly in light of the need for finality and certainty in administrative decision-making. The application for an extension of time was therefore not allowed.