The Applicant stated, in correspondence with the Tribunal and the Respondent [9]that shortly before lodging the application with the Tribunal in December 2024, the Applicant had given birth to a very premature baby. The baby required an extended stay in the Royal Women's Hospital Melbourne in the neonatal intensive care and special care units. During the time the baby was in the Royal Women's Hospital, the Applicant was the primary caregiver. It was understandable in the circumstances that the Applicant was not focused on the application she had lodged with the Tribunal shortly after the birth of her child.
Furthermore, the Applicant advised the Tribunal in the email correspondence and again during the Directions Hearing that during the same period she experienced significant personal and financial disruption that included the loss of her employment. The Applicant explained that while she was unemployed, she did not have "immediate access to funds" to pay the Tribunal's application fee. The Applicant explained her financial position was the reason the Applicant had made an application for a reduction of the application fee. However, given the other distractions the Applicant faced, the Applicant found that she did not have the time to provide the documentary material required to support that application.
The Applicant stated during the Directions Hearing on 2 February 2026 that, once her financial circumstance had stabilised in the first half of 2025 she applied to the Tribunal for an extension of time until 26 August 2025 to seek review of the Respondent's decision, not appreciating the application she had filed in December 2024 had been dismissed in April 2025.
It was in fact the Respondent who drew the Tribunal's attention to the fact the application for an extension of time reference matter 2025/ 5767 was "a substantially similar application for review of decision" that had been dismissed under section 98 of the ART Act because the Applicant had not paid the application fee. The Respondent put to the Tribunal that the more appropriate course might be for "".
the Applicant to apply in writing for application 2024/10165 to be reinstated under section 102 of the ART Act
The Applicant advised the Tribunal and the Respondent in correspondence dated 11 November 2025 that it was the Applicant's genuine intention to pursue the review of the Commissioner's decision if the Tribunal were minded to exercise its discretion to reinstate the matter under section 102 of the ART Act.
The Applicant advised the Tribunal during the Directions Hearing that the tax assessed to Applicant as a result of the Respondent's decision had been paid.
In further correspondence to the Tribunal and the Applicant on 26 November 2025, the Respondent advised it was not opposed to the reinstatement of application 2024/10165 pursuant to section 102 ART Act if the Tribunal had the power to reinstate the application.[11]The Respondent requested the matter be listed for directions to "discuss the Tribunal's view". (emphasis added)
In a further email to the Tribunal the Respondent advised the Tribunal it did not wish to make any submission on whether the matter should be reinstated. The Respondent stated in that email "we are in the Tribunal's hands as to whether it considers that it is empowered to do so."
[2]
The Tribunal finds that the matter was dismissed summarily by the Registrar in April 2025. Although the Registrar was not in error, the oversight was the Applicant's. Given that there is no prejudice to the Respondent, the correct or preferable decision is that the application be reinstated and determined on its merits
the Tribunal is satisfied that special circumstances exist justifying the reinstatement of the application and considers the application was dismissed in error in the sense described by Carr J in Goldie.
Pursuant to section 102 (6) of the ART Act, the Tribunal orders that application 2024/10165-6 be reinstated and directs that the matter be listed for Case Management Directions Hearings on a date convenient to the Tribunal in March 2026.