Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support)
[2025] ARTA 1945
•22 August 2025
Yee and Child Support Registrar (Child support) [2025] ARTA 1945 (22 August 2025)
Applicant: Mr Yee
Respondent: Child Support Registrar
Other Parties: Not applicable
Tribunal Number: 2025/BC029168
Tribunal: General Member S Hoffman
Place:Perth
Date:22 August 2025
Decision:
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
CATCHWORDS
CHILD SUPPORT – application for extension of time – non-agency payments – travel costs to spend time with children – not prescribed payments – explanation for the delay – misunderstanding – decision on the papers – no merit – extension of time refused – decision under review affirmed
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 pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
Mr Yee and Ms [A] are the parents of [Children A and B]. The father is required to pay child support to the mother.
On 4 October 2024, an officer from Services Australia – Child Support (Child Support) made five decisions to refuse to accept payments totalling $597.40 as non-agency payments (NAPs) (the original decisions). If the payments had been accepted as NAPs, the father’s child support liability would have been reduced by $597.40.
On 20 November 2024, the father lodged an objection to the original decisions.
Generally, a person has 28 days in which to lodge an objection to a decision made by Child Support. Because of the time that had elapsed between the date of the original decisions and 20 November 2024, the father requested an extension of time (EOT) so his objection could be considered.
On 31 December 2024, a Child Support officer decided to refuse the EOT request (the EOT decision).
On 16 January 2025, the father sought a review by this Tribunal of the EOT decision.
A hearing was originally listed for 18 June 2025. The father advised that he had a family law hearing scheduled for that date. The Tribunal hearing was then listed for 13 August 2025, with the father to attend via MS Teams audio (equivalent to conference telephone).
On the day of the hearing the Tribunal rang the father who said that he had forgotten about the hearing, he was at work and was unable to stay on the call for as long as might be required for a hearing. The Tribunal asked if he was agreeable to the Tribunal making a decision on the papers and he said that he was.
The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by the CSA (numbered 1 to 228), a copy of which had been provided to the father before the date of the hearing.
ISSUES
The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the following Acts:
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act);
Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act); and
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act1988 (the R & C Act).
The main issue which arises in this case is whether an EOT should be granted.
CONSIDERATION
Legislation
Subsection 106(3) of the ART Act provides for the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing if the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party (the Child Support Registrar); the applicant consents to the decision being made without a hearing; and it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination can be adequately determined without a hearing.
Part VII of the R & C Act is about the procedures related to objections made for certain decisions. Section 79D of the R & C Act gives a simplified outline of Part VII and sets out that Child Support is required to reconsider a decision to which a person has objected.
Subsection 80(1) of the R & C Act requires a person objecting to a decision to make their application in writing.[1]
[1] There is an exception. Objections do not have to be in writing for care percentage decisions (subsection 80(6) of the R & C Act). The decisions relevant to this review are not care percentage decisions but decisions to do with NAPs.
Section 81 of the R & C Act is about time limits on lodging objections. Relevant to this review, it provides that a person has 28 days after a notice of the decision was served on them, in which to lodge an objection.
Section 82 of the R & C Act provides for a person to apply for an extension of time to lodge an objection, after the 28-day period has elapsed. It requires that the application must state fully and in detail the grounds for the application, including the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for failing, to lodge the objection within the 28-day timeframe. It also states that the application must be lodged in the manner specified by Child Support.
Subsection 83(1) of the R & C Act requires Child Support to either grant or refuse an EOT application, and if granted, to deal with the objection.
Evidence and consideration of evidence
The Tribunal notes that the applicant consented to the decision being made without a hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the issues for determination can be adequately determined without a hearing. For these reasons the Tribunal has made its decision in this review on the papers.
The Tribunal is required to consider whether it should grant an EOT for the father to lodge his objection to the original decisions made on 4 October 2024. Other decisions to do with EOT applications provide guidance to the Tribunal in this matter. It is clear that generally, the statutory time limit of 28 days is to be enforced unless there are acceptable reasons for departing from this prescribed timeframe.
The relevant factors in relation to allowing EOT applications have been considered in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment [1984] FCA 176 and more recently in Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31 (30 January 2023).
The relevant factors were summarised in paragraphs 32 and 33 of Englezos as follows:
The principles governing the Court’s discretion to grant an extension of time are well settled. In summary, the Court will have regard to:
(1) Whether there is an adequate explanation for delay on the part of the applicant;
(2) Prejudice to be faced by the parties; and
(3) Merits of the proposed grounds of appeal….
It is also well established that, as a general principle, the Court will not exercise its discretion unless it is in the interests of justice to do so
Returning to the decision under review, the father lodged separate applications for NAPs to be accepted, in the following amounts: $311.00, $30.00, $97.90, $51.80 and $106.80. These total $597.50. Child Support have recorded the total to be $597.40. The difference is immaterial.
The original decision statements issued by Child Support about the NAPs included the following:
Call us if you think this decision is incorrect because information was not provided or taken into account; or the legislation has not been applied correctly. We will check the details and explain the decision. You can ask us to review the decision (we call this an objection) within 28 days from the date you receive this letter. For more information about how to object go to our website servicesaustralia.gov.au/reviewsandappeals [bolded in the original]
In his objection dated 20 November 2024, the father wrote that he received a call from Child Support’s change of assessment team on 24 October 2024, and there was a miscommunication as to whether further objections would be required to be submitted. He was advised “no” and he thought they were referring to whether he needed to lodge further objections to decisions made about NAPs but it appears there was a misunderstanding.
When lodging his application for review with the Tribunal, the father wrote as follows:
I received a call from CSA - which turned out to be from the COA department regarding a COA I put in regarding my assessment. During this conversation I asked if I needed to object to all of my receipts that were rejected as there were multiple. Due to miscommunication this officer advised I did not as he thought I was referring to the COA application.
When I discovered this my authorised representative contacted CSA and spoke with someone regarding the miscommunication and the objection that was now out of time, they advised that due to being able to access the call records regarding this conversation that this
should be sufficient to explain the miscommunication and should then mean an extension would be granted.
The Tribunal notes that the father had lodged a number of NAP applications in a relatively short time frame and it is quite credible that there was some confusion and/or misunderstanding during conversations he had with Child Support officers about NAPs and even more likely if he had also been enquiring about the change of assessment process.
The Tribunal does not consider there would be any prejudice to the mother should the EOT be granted, given the background to the substantive application, discussed below.
The EOT matter was listed to be heard on 13 August 2025, as were two others matters where the father was the applicant (2025/BC29174 and 2025/BC029208). The mother was a party to these other two matters. These were reviews by the Tribunal of objection decisions to refuse certain payments made by the father to be accepted as NAPs.
Those matters were also decided on the papers. In both of those cases, the Tribunal found that the objection decisions were correct and that the payments could not be accepted as NAPs, as the criteria were for that to occur were not met.
As with the original decisions made on 4 October 2024 relevant to this EOT review, those two matters concerned costs incurred by the father in order to spend time with the children and what was stated about those types of costs in Court Orders dated [July] 2024.
Having made decisions on two very similar matters, where the only significant differences were the amounts claimed and the dates the payments were made, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no merit in reviewing the NAP decisions made on 4 October 2024.
Conclusion
Given the foregoing, the Tribunal determines that the request made on 20 November 2024 for an EOT is to be refused.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
| Date of hearing as scheduled: | Wednesday, 13 August 2025 |
| Representative for the Applicant: | Not applicable |
0
2
0