Wigton and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

[2021] AATA 1766

Wigton and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2021] AATA 1766 (3 May 2021)

DIVISION:Social Services & Child Support Division

EXTENSION APPLICATION

NUMBER:2021/MC021128

APPLICANT:  Mr Wigton

OTHER PARTY:  Child Support Registrar

DATE DECISION MADE:               03 May 2021

APPLICATION:

An extension application made on 30 March 2021 asking the AAT to consider the application for AAT first review of a decision of the Child Support Registrar on 23 February 2021 despite the 28 day period for applying for review having ended.

CATCHWORDS

CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – no satisfactory explanation for the delay – little merit – prejudice to the other party – 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.

EXTENSION OF TIME CRITERIA

In its assessment of an extension of time application, the tribunal must consider the reasons for the delay; the merits of the application and prejudice (if any) to all parties concerned.[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[2] especially as the records show Mr Wigton was notified of the decision electronically on 23 February 2021. [3]  In the extension application, Mr Wigton represented he had some medical problems requiring surgery but there is no medical evidence to verify that he was so incapacitated that he could not lodge an application for review or alternatively assign the task to another within the required time.  It was also submitted that an important family commitment which necessitated travel and a job loss impacted on timeliness of an application to the tribunal, but again there is no evidence that these events prevented the request for a review within the required time frame. 

[2] 7 days out of time

[3] Folio 7

The tribunal also considered 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.

The tribunal next considered the merits of the application.  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 the extension application,  has been sufficiently grounded in material reasonably capable of supporting it, particularly with reference to the binding agreement between the parties and also because the claims do not fall within the category/definition permissible to be classified as a non-agency payment.  The tribunal finds the merits are weak, and further review is likely to be unsuccessful.[5]  

[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.

[5] Smith and Commissioner of Patents [2012] AATA 60 at [29-31])

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 and covering letter forwarded by the Child Support Agency.[6] 

[6] Folio 2

Senior Member D Benk