(a) The length of the delay (Ralkon v Aboriginal Development Commission [1982] FCA 153);

(b) The reasons for the delay and whether an applicant has shown an acceptable explanation for the delay (Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Cohen [1984] FCA 176 (Cohen));

(c) Any prejudice to the Respondent (Cohen);

(d) The public interest (Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541); and

(e) Whether the substantive application has reasonable prospects of success (Cohen).

1. In making a decision in this matter, the Tribunal had regard to:

(i) The evidence and submissions made by the Applicant at the hearing and the submissions made by the Respondent at the hearing;

(ii) Information provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal including: a copy of the second review application; AAT decision; emails dated 10 August 2025, 26 September 2025 and 1 October 2025; letter prepared by the Applicant's accountant dated 14 May 2018; questionnaire completed by the Applicant (undated); and statutory declaration dated 15 May 2018; and

(iii) Secretary's Outline of Submissions, with Attachments A to E.

1. As noted above, the Applicant had until 5 March 2019 to make an application for second review and did not do so until 10 August 2025, some six years, five months and five days out of time. The Applicant did not dispute the length of the delay, but asserted he had not received notice of the AAT decision.
2. The Respondent submits that the length of the delay is significant and weighs against granting an extension of time in this matter.
3. The Tribunal accepts that there was a significant delay in the Applicant lodging an application for second review and finds that this weighs heavily against granting an extension of time to the Applicant.

1. The Applicant's written reasons for seeking to extend time to make the application were that:

Thank you for giving me another Opportunity. I never Receive any deccision as in most cases I dont have Access to my Emails .I live in the Car for the Last 4 years . Noone has ask me ay questions , I was not given any opportunity to explain. I was not aware thant I have a Specific time to Respond and my deepest apologies .Im 75 years old

I have send to Samatha and tribunal over 20 Emails .

I need someone to read the emails in order to you to understand what Im going through . There is a Serius Breach here direct from the Archives of Cetrelink . I need to talk to someone to Explain . Someone must read my Case..Please ..

1. When asked about the reasons for the delay at the hearing, the Applicant referred to Centrelink having been in contact with another person with the same surname as him, in the same suburb, and stated that there had been a lot of correspondence he has not received. He also spoke of having been bankrupt and Centrelink having had all of his papers from his trustee in bankruptcy. When asked to comment more specifically on the delay following the AAT review the Applicant stated he had been homeless and living in his car. When asked whether he had been expecting a decision from the AAT, he responded by stating he had never received it.
2. The Respondent noted, in written submissions provided to the Tribunal, that in Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31, the Federal Court noted that (at [38]-[39]):[2]

Whilst the Court may have sympathy for a litigant in person, a failure to abide by any stipulated timeframe in the filing of an appeal by virtue of a professed ignorance of the relevant rules is not an adequate reason for delay...

Without good reason, a litigant in person is not inherently exempt from the rules. The time limits prescribed by the Federal Court Rules and AAT Act are not "mere aspirational guidelines" and the applicant must provide a good reason to explain the delay, particularly when that delay is lengthy: BLD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1400 at [3]; BJT19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 870 at [40].

1. The Respondent noted that the Applicant's written application for an extension of time had not explained why he was unable to apply for review of the decision within the 28-day time limit. The Respondent further noted that the Applicant had communicated with the Respondent in June 2021 and with the AAT in early 2022 in relation to a separate decision.
2. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the Applicant has had periods of homelessness. However, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant's written application for an extension of time referred to him having been homeless for the last four years, suggesting that this may have occurred after the age pension claim was lodged. Further, other emails sent by the Applicant to the Tribunal referred to him having slept in his car during the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. The Applicant was unable to explain to the Tribunal why he had not expected an AAT decision after participating in a hearing in January 2019, or his specific circumstances as of February 2019 which prevented him lodging an application within time. While accepting that the Applicant has had difficult circumstances, the Tribunal was not persuaded on the information presented to it that the Applicant has provided a clear explanation of his reasons for the delay. The Tribunal finds that this weighs against granting an extension of time to the Applicant in this matter.

1. The Applicant did not comment specifically on any prejudice to the Respondent in his evidence at the hearing.
2. The Respondent submits that it would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted, on the basis that the passage of time has affected its ability to defend the application, to obtain relevant information and documents, and to elicit reliable evidence from witnesses.
3. The Respondent referred in written submissions to Quagliato and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2022] AATA 4434, in which the AAT referred to the prejudice to both parties from a three-year delay (at [36]):[3]

These matters will require evidence on which relevant factual findings can be made. After the passage of almost 3 years, the ability of each party to obtain relevant probative materials in respect of events up to 6 years ago may be prejudiced. As time passes, memories fade and records may be more difficult to obtain. On Mr Turton's letter, 2 years after receiving the AAT first review decision, Ms Quagliato could not recall if her appeal against the ARO's decision had been heard by the Tribunal. If that is correct, there is a strong possibility she would not reliably recall other aspects of her life and circumstances in any detail. This simply serves to demonstrate the difficulty each party may face obtaining relevant and probative evidence should the matter be allowed to proceed.

1. The Respondent further noted the comments of the Federal Court in Kuljic v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1994] FCA 886 that:[4]

....it would be futile to grant an extension of time and most unjust to the Respondent to subject the Respondent to the cost of defending a pointless appeal.

1. The Tribunal accepted there would be some prejudice to the Respondent in granting an extension of time to the Applicant and this prejudice arises because of the significant passage of time since the AAT hearing. This weighs against granting an extension of time to the Applicant.

Whether the substantive application has reasonable prospects of success

1. The Tribunal accepted that the relevant background to this matter is that the Applicant lodged a claim for age pension with the Respondent on 15 January 2018. In the claim form, he stated he was not involved in any type of business inside Australia; was not involved in a private trust; and was not a director, shareholder or otherwise involved in a private company.
2. Following the claim being lodged, the Respondent obtained an Equifax report which stated the Applicant was a current director and secretary of three entities and had held other roles within five years of the age pension claim.
3. On 2 May 2018, the Respondent sought further information from the Applicant about his circumstances within 14 days. This included information about four companies, including the preparation of a "Mod PC" form, information about whether he had been involved in any private trust in the past five years and his most recent personal income tax return. The notice was sent to the Applicant pursuant to section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) (the Administration Act), which is headed "Requirement to attend Department etc.". Subsection 63(1) specifies that subsection (2) applies to a person who has made a claim for a social security payment. Subsection 63(2) then states that:

(2) If the Secretary is of the opinion that a person to whom this subsection applies should:

(c) attend a particular place for a particular purpose; or

the Secretary may notify the person that he or she is required, within a specified time, to do that act or thing. However, the Secretary may not, under this subsection, notify a person that he or she is required to do an act or thing referred to in paragraph (4)(a) or (b).

1. The Tribunal accepted that the notice of 2 May 2018 was a notice requiring the Applicant to give information to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph 63(2)(d) of the Administration Act.
2. The Applicant provided a written statement to the Respondent on 9 May 2018, but did not otherwise provide the information sought.
3. On 11 May 2018, the Respondent sent further correspondence to the Applicant about the information sought. The Tribunal accepted that this correspondence was also a notice requiring the Applicant to give information to the Secretary in accordance with paragraph 63(2)(d) of the Administration Act.
4. The Applicant provided a statutory declaration dated 15 May 2018 to the Respondent, but did not otherwise provide the information sought.
5. Subsection 64(1) of the Administration Act states that:

(a) a person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a social security payment; and

(b) the Secretary notifies the person under subsection 63(2), (2AB) or (4); and

(c) the requirement in the notice is reasonable; and

(d) the person does not comply with the requirement; and

(e) except if the person is receiving, or has made a claim for, a participation payment--the Secretary is not satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement; and

(f) the Secretary is satisfied that it is reasonable for this subsection to apply to the person;

the payment that the person is receiving or has claimed is not payable.

1. The Applicant's claim for age pension was rejected on 4 June 2018 on the basis that the payment was not payable, as the Applicant had not complied with the notices issued to him for the provision of information relevant to his claim for age pension.
2. At the hearing for the extension of time, the Applicant asserted that Centrelink had had letters that he was bankrupt, had papers form the trustee and Federal Court and had papers for every organisation that "controlled him". He asserted that the companies had been deregistered and that the "whole thing was so funny and strange". When asked by the Tribunal why he had not completed the forms required by Centrelink ("Mod P" forms), he stated that he had told them and had sent them 50 emails, including letters sent directly to the CEO of Centrelink. Later in the hearing, the Applicant stated that he was not really aware of all correspondence and perhaps he responded to one or two, and the Tribunal should give him a further chance to explain.
3. The Respondent submits that, while it cannot be said the Applicant's application has no prospects of success, the proposed appeal does not disclose a particularly strong case, based on the AAT findings, which included that:[5]
   1. The Applicant's Statutory Declaration dated 15 May 2018 "does not contain the amount or type of information the MOD PC is designed to illicit and falls short of being even partial compliance with the requirements set out in Centrelink's notices".

1. The Applicant "failed to comply with a notice under section 63 [of the Administration Act] despite ample opportunity to do so. The Tribunal finds that the non-compliance prevented Centrelink from assessing his eligibility for age pension and, on that basis, it follows that age pension was not payable to him."; and

1. The Applicant did not have a reasonable excuse for not complying with the section 63 notices dated 2 and 11 May 2018, pursuant to subsection 64(1)(e) of the Administration Act.

1. The Respondent noted, in written submissions, that the Applicant had not provided any additional evidence to challenge the findings of the authorised review officer or of the AAT. The Respondent noted similar decisions that had been made by the AAT in relation to noncompliance with a section 63 notice, of some relevance being Rapoff and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2014] AATA 676 (at [18]):

The requirement to give the information requested (in the 16 December 2013 Letter) was reasonable, since the information requested by Centrelink was necessary to enable Centrelink to properly assess Mrs Rapoff's age pension claim, as Mrs Rapoff is a "member of a couple" who is treated under s 1064-A2 of the SSA as pooling her resources (i.e. "income" and "assets") with her husband;

Mrs Rapoff did not comply with the requirement as she failed to provide Centrelink with all of the information requested (in the 16 December 2013 Letter) by the specified date. Specifically, Mrs Rapoff failed to provide Centrelink with information about her husband's income and assets by 30 December 2013.

1. The Tribunal noted that, while the Applicant was bankrupt at the time of claim, his involvement in a number of companies, and that of any "associates" (including his son), is of potential relevance to the income and assets used to determine the payability, and rate, of age pension. Part 3.18 of the Social Security Act sets out legislation relevant to determining the attribution of income and assets from private trusts and companies. Any income and assets arising from attribution from a private trust or company are used in calculating a person's rate of age pension under section 1064 of the Social Security Act. Any involvement in the five year period prior to claim, where there had been a deprivation of interest in a trust or company, is also of potential relevance in assessing the Applicant's claim for age pension, under Part 3.12 of the Social Security Act.
2. Given the difficulty for the Respondent in properly assessing the Applicant's claim for age pension in the absence of the information sought, the relevance of the information to the Applicant's claim and the Applicant's failure to provide that information to the Respondent, the Tribunal finds that there appears to be little merit in the substantive application before the Tribunal. This weighs against granting an extension of time in this matter.

1. The Respondent submits that there is public interest in the finality of decision-making and that the public interest, in addition to the interests of applicants who comply with prescribed time limits, are unsettled by perceptions of unfairness. The Respondent submits, and the Tribunal accepts, that the public interest weighs against an extension of time being granted.

1. The Tribunal has found that there is significant delay in this matter which has not been satisfactorily explained by the Applicant. In addition, the Applicant's failure to provide the information sought by the Respondent, and the Respondent's corresponding inability to be able to assess the Applicant's claim for age pension, has led the Tribunal to conclude that there appears to be limited, or little, merit in the substantive application. For these reasons in particular, the Tribunal has decided that it is not reasonable in all of the circumstances to extend time in this matter. The extension of time application is refused.

The Tribunal refuses to extend the time for the making of an application for review of the decision.

[1] The Respondent has noted the Applicant had until 5 February 2019 to make an application for second review. For the reasons set out by the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that this was the date on which notice was given and that 5 March 2019 is the date by which an application was required to be made (Secretary's Outline of Submissions at paragraph 21).

[2] Cited in Respondent's Outline of Submissions at paragraph 36.

[3] Cited in Respondent's Outline of Submissions at paragraph 44.

[4] Cited in Respondent's Outline of Submissions at paragraph 45.

[5] Set out in paragraph 57(f) of the Respondent's Outline of Submissions; AAT paragraph references deleted.