(a) the length of the delay in applying for review > > (b) the Applicant's awareness of appeal rights and explanation for the delay > > (c) the prospects of success if the extension of time is granted, that is, the merits of the substantive application > > (d) any prejudice to the Respondent or Other Party if the extension of time is granted, including any difficulties they will experience in providing evidence because of the delay; and > > (e) any relevant public interest considerations, such as fairness in granting an extension of time as between the Applicant and others in a similar position.

5. These principles have more recently been restated in Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31. The authorities clearly set out the well settled factors considered when exercising the discretion to allow an extension of time.

Length of delay and Mr FGCX's awareness of appeal rights

1. The Registrar submits that Mr FGCX received the Tribunal decision on 16 December 2024 via email. Mr FGCX had 28 days to seek review of that decision, that is, until 13 January 2025. An application was lodged on 9 July 2025, together with a request for an extension of time. This application was 177 days late. The delay in making the application, I find, was of a significant length. The records show Mr FGCX was notified of the Tribunal's decision electronically on 16 December 2024.[3] A letter was also sent to Mr FGCX with the Tribunal's decision which provided clear instructions in relation to further review avenues with the Tribunal. I find that Mr FGCX was aware of his review rights based on the letter sent on 16 December 2024.

1. Mr FGCX states that he thought he spoke to someone at the Tribunal in January 2025 regarding review of the decision. He provided documents to the Tribunal at this time, but did not hear anything further. He stated that he contacted the Tribunal again in February 2025. There is no record of contact with the Tribunal in February 2025. The Tribunal's records indicate that Mr FGCX provided to the Tribunal a medical report and an undated letter referring to the objection decision on 14 January 2025. Neither document refers to the decision of 16 December 2024. On 7 July 2025 Mr FGCX contacted the Tribunal regarding second review. The application for second review was subsequently lodged on 9 July 2025.
2. Mr FGCX submits that he contacted the Tribunal in January 2025. The only contact with the Tribunal was the provision of documents on 14 January 2025. He stated that he did not know he was required to lodge an application for second review. I do not accept that the provision of this information was a request for a review of the decision on 16 December 2024. No further reason was provided to explain the delay in the lodgement of the application and the application for an extension of time on 9 July 2025. I do not find that there was an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking a review.

1. As Member Ranson observed in KNSM and Child Support Registrar (Child support second review),[4] the Tribunal is not required to forensically assess the matter for the purposes of this extension of time application.
2. Mr FGCX stated that he was suffering from mental health issues throughout this time, including at the time of the objection decision, and the process has been overwhelming for him. He stated that he was struggling to function on a daily basis in all aspects of his life and has been taking medication and seeing a counsellor. This information was not provided with the extension application but was included in information subsequently given to the Tribunal.
3. It was submitted by the Respondent that Mr FGCX accessed his online letters, including the objection decision, on 20 August 2024.[5] Included with the objection decision was information as to Mr FGCX's review rights. Mr FGCX was also advised in a telephone conversation of his review rights on 22 August 2024.
4. Mr FGCX stated that he originally sought review of the objection decision because while he accepted the objections officer's assessment of his income for the financial year ending 30 June 2023, his 2023-24 income was considerably lower. As observed in the previous Tribunal decision, Mr FGCX's self-employed status was considered in the objection decision apart from his taxable income. Furthermore, Mr FGCX stated that his company went into administration in February/March 2025. If there is new information regarding Mr FGCX's circumstances, it would be open to him make a further change of assessment application for these circumstances to be considered.
5. Accordingly, even if I were satisfied of the other considerations for granting the extension of time, I find that there is little merit in this extension application. I am satisfied that Mr FGCX was aware of his review rights when advised of the decision of the objection officer and subsequently made aware when he spoke to a delegate of the Respondent on 22 August 2024. I also find that, as Mr FGCX could make a new change of assessment application regarding his changed circumstances, there is little merit in this application.

1. I find that the delay in seeking a review prejudices the other party to this matter, because they are entitled to consider the matter finalised after the expiry of the review period.

1. It was conceded that there would be no prejudice to the Registrar if an extension were to be granted. However, I find that there would be prejudice to the general public if an extension were to be granted. The time limits imposed by the Act are to ensure that there is predictability and certainty in administrative decision-making. In addition, it would be unfair to grant an extension in this application which has not be afforded to other individuals in similar circumstances, especially in circumstances where the timeframe for review are clearly articulated in the letters provided to Mr FGCX, I find that there is prejudice to the general public.

1. Considering all the above reasons, I am not satisfied it is reasonable to grant the extension of time.

1. Pursuant to section 19(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal refuses to extend the time for the making of an application for review of an eligible social services decision dated 16 December 2024.

[1] Electronic Transactions Act 1999 s 14A.

[2] Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344.

[3] Attachment 'A' of the Child Support Registrar's written submissions.

[4] [2024] AATA 3184 at [27].

[5] Attachment 'C' of the Child Support Registrar's written submissions.