ZWHJ and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review)

This matter concerned a second review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of a decision by the Child Support Registrar. The Applicant, who resides in a reciprocating jurisdiction, sought to challenge an earlier decision made on 16 March 2015 to depart from a standard child support assessment. This departure was based on the Applicant's adjusted taxable income for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016 being assessed at $162,900. The Applicant had lodged an objection to this decision, which was disallowed on 30 April 2018, as no evidence was provided to suggest his income differed from the assessed amount.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the Applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time to lodge his application for review, and if so, whether the original decision to depart from the child support assessment was correct. The Applicant's initial application for review to the AAT was denied an extension of time, leading to the subsequent application for a second review. The Applicant's eligibility to apply for review from a reciprocating jurisdiction within a 90-day period, as opposed to the standard 28 days, was also a relevant consideration under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence regarding his mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and the impact of medication, as reasons for his delay in lodging the review application. While acknowledging the potential merit in the Applicant's case and the production of previously unavailable corroborating documents, the Tribunal noted the difficulty in fully satisfying the veracity of some of the Applicant's claims due to disjointed evidence. The Tribunal also had regard to the Applicant's assertion that he had appealed his income assessment multiple times and denied any attempt to minimise his income through employment.

The Tribunal ultimately denied the Applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge his review application. Consequently, the Tribunal did not proceed to consider the merits of the original decision to depart from the child support assessment.