Yusef and Child Support Registrar (Child support)

Miss Yusef applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for an extension of time to seek a review of a child support decision made by the Child Support Registrar on 5 October 2017. The Registrar's decision had allowed Miss Yusef's objection, which resulted in an increase in the child support arrears owed by Mr A, the other parent. Miss Yusef lodged her application for an extension of time on 4 September 2018, approximately 293 days after the statutory deadline for applying for a review of the objection decision.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether to grant Miss Yusef's application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the child support objection decision. In determining this, the Tribunal was required to consider the principles for exercising discretion to grant an extension, as established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*. These principles involve balancing various factors, including the reasons for the delay, the merits of the substantive application, potential prejudice to the other party and the public, and overall fairness.

The Tribunal found that Miss Yusef had not provided a reasonable explanation for the significant delay, stating only that she thought she had already submitted the form and was waiting for a reply. The Tribunal noted that no evidence was provided to support this assertion and that Miss Yusef had been clearly advised of the 28-day timeframe for review. Furthermore, the Tribunal assessed the merits of Miss Yusef's substantive application and found it had little merit, concluding that the Child Support Agency had appropriately considered the available information in setting Mr A's income. The Tribunal also considered the prejudice to Mr A, who could reasonably expect the decision to be final after such a prolonged period, and the prejudice to the public interest in maintaining certainty in administrative time limits.

Having carefully weighed all relevant factors, the Tribunal concluded that it would not be proper to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.