Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 16(2AB) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.

1. This is a review of a decision of Services Australia (Child Support) about whether to extend the time in which to lodge an objection.
2. Mr Miagley and [Ms A] have a child support assessment for their 2 children. The parent who is assessed to pay child support has varied over the case depending on the income and care levels used in the assessment.
3. On 30 May 2024, Child Support made a decision to change the assessment in special circumstances on the basis of an application made by [Ms A] on 27 March 2024. That decision was to vary Mr Miagley's income used in the assessment to $250,000 for the period 1 December 2023 to 26 November 2026. This decision resulted in a reduction to arrears and ongoing child support owed by [Ms A] to Mr Miagley, and created a short period whereby Mr Miagley would need to pay a minimal rate of Child Support to [Ms A]. Both parents were issued letters about the decision on 30 May 2024, which included the information about the right to lodge an objection within 28 days.
4. On 27 August 2024, Mr Miagley lodged an objection to the decision. On 23 December 2024, Child Support contacted Mr Miagley and informed him he would also need to apply for an extension of time to object, which he lodged the same day. On 2 January 2025, Child Support refused his extension of time application and on 9 January 2025, Mr Miagley applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision.
5. The Tribunal and Mr Miagley received hearing papers from Child Support numbered 1-527, and Mr Miagley also provided submissions numbered A1-A75. These have been considered by the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal held a hearing on 20 June 2025 with Mr Miagley attending and giving evidence by telephone. The Child Support Registrar did not participate in the hearing.
7. Mr Miagley initially sought to be represented at the hearing by his accountant, [Mr B]. However, [Mr B] was not available on the day of hearing and Mr Miagley indicated that he was happy to proceed without a representative. Mr Miagley advised the Tribunal he had applied for [Mr B] to represent him in order to provide financial evidence relating to the underlying change of assessment objection, which was a level of detail not required for the purposes of the extension of time decision.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act) and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act).
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether an extension of time to object should be granted to Mr Miagley.

1. Section 81 of the Act provides time limits for lodging an objection to a decision made by Child Support. For residents of Australia, the Act provides that the time limit is 'within 28 days after the decision first comes to the notice of the person'.
2. Section 82 of the Act allows people to apply to the Child Support Registrar for an extension of time to object if they have not done so within the required timeframe. The section states that the application must be made in the manner specified by the Child Support Registrar, and 'must state fully and in detail the grounds of the application, including the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the failure by the person to lodge the objection as required by section 81'.
3. Section 83 of the Act requires that Child Support consider the application and grant or refuse it within a certain timeframe. If the application is not granted, subsection 89(1) of the Act provides that the person may apply to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

1. Mr Miagley does not deny being served with notice of the decision. Child Support did not provide evidence of how he was served but noted in the decision under review that his objection was due by 17 July 2024, indicating he was served by post.
2. Page 439 of the hearing papers shows a record of a telephone call from Mr Miagley to Child Support on 15 August 2024. In that call Mr Miagley was clearly attempting to object to the change of assessment decision and he was given inaccurate information that he was only able to do so within 28 days, and now the only option remaining to him was to seek review at the Tribunal. He was not given information about how to apply for an extension of time in which to object. On 27 August 2024, Mr Miagley wrote a detailed letter to Child-Support outlining his concerns with the decision that was made and seeking further explanation for how the decision about his income was arrived at (page 457-458 hearing papers). Eventually, after continuing to follow-up with Child Support, Mr Miagley's letter dated 27 August 2024 was treated as an objection.
3. Mr Miagley's objection was out of time by approximately 5 weeks, and therefore an extension is required in order to object.

1. The Act does not specify what the relevant considerations are when making a decision to grant or refuse an application for an extension of time to object, aside from the references in section 82 to the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the failure by the person to lodge the objection within time.
2. The courts have outined relevant factors for decision makers to consider in extension applications generally, and these have been generally adopted by Child Support in the Australian Government policy document known as the Child Support Guide (the Guide), which can be found online at https://guides.dss.gov.au/child-support-guide.
3. At 10.2.5 the Guide states that when determining whether to grant an extension of time, Child Support will consider the reasons for delay, whether the parent rested on their rights, the merits of the objection, and any prejudice to the other parent or the general public. An extension will not be granted simply because a parent has made out any one of the above factors, but rather all factors must be considered and given appropriate weight, and no single factor will be conclusive on its own. The Tribunal adopts the policy in the Guide and has considered each of these factors in coming to a decision.

Reasons for delay and whether Mr Miagley rested on his rights

1. Mr Miagley contacted Child Support 4 weeks after his objection was due and was given the wrong information that he could no longer object. He pursued this with Child Support for some months until they dealt with his concerns about the decision, with his written objection ultimately being approximately 40 days late once Child Support retrospectively considered it to be an objection. The Tribunal considers that this is not an extensive period, but that Mr Miagley rested on his rights until the date he contacted Child Support 4 weeks after his objection had been due. The additional delay past the first 4 weeks can be attributed to Child Support giving Mr Miagley incorrect information.
2. Mr Miagley submitted to the Tribunal that he was very anxious and stressed about all the proceedings happening both within and outside of Child Support relating to the separation from the other party. Multiple administrative proceedings were occurring at Child Support, which is evidenced in the hearing papers, and Mr Miagley also said that the parties were and are still going through a property settlement and other legal action. He said he also has additional caring needs for his son who is autistic. Mr Miagley said the stress over the relevant period was high, and there were periods he could not even pick up paperwork to look at it. Mr Miagley did not provide any documentary medical evidence to the Tribunal in regard to his mental health in the relevant period however the Tribunal accepts his oral evidence that he was experiencing high stress.
3. The Tribunal finds that Mr Miagley was aware of and rested on his rights until he first contacted Child Support. The Tribunal considers there is in part some reason for the delay relating to Mr Miagley's state of mind. These factors will be balanced with the other considerations.

1. The Tribunal does not need to determine whether Mr Miagley's objection would be successful in order to have merit, but only whether he has an arguable case on face value. Change of assessment in special circumstances is provided for in part 6A of the Assessment Act. The provisions allow a decision maker to depart from the assessment in special circumstances when it is just and equitable and otherwise proper to do so. The range of decisions that can be made under this process are broad and discretionary, and additional financial information provided on objection will often result in a different decision that what was originally determined.
2. Mr Miagley's submissions about why the change of assessment decision was wrong can be summarised as:
   • The high home loans he has to repay are joint liabilities with [Ms A] that she refuses to contribute to, and the repayments have put him in financial distress.
   • The decision maker misapplied the division 7A loans from his company.
   • While there are retained profits, he disputes the figure calculated by Child Support and believes they have misinterpreted his financial information on multiple points (including confusing revenue with profit).
   • Company expenses were misapplied as being Mr Miagley's expenses, including the company's debit card, which was used by 5 employees not just Mr Miagley, and is no longer used for personal expenses aside from minimal exceptions.
   • There have been some changes to circumstances since the decision including the sale of property and the withdrawal of a child from private school.

1. The change of assessment decision at page 340 of the hearing papers shows that Mr Miagley was asked to provide a significant amount of relevant financial documentation to Child Support and did not provide the majority of the requested documents, and so the decision had to be made in the absence of that information.

1. Mr Miagley's accountant [Mr B] provided a statement to the Tribunal summarising the financial inaccuracies in the decision and outlining new information, as well as attaching financial evidence not before the original decision maker (A39-41 plus attachments). If the submissions of Mr Miagley and his accountant are accepted as true, it is likely that a different decision would be reached if the decision about the change of assessment application were made now. The Tribunal finds that the objection has merit.

1. [Ms A] is not a party to this application and has not sought to be added as a party. Child Support policy is that the other parent is not notified of the application to extend time to object unless considering granting the application, in which case they will be contacted for their views. The Tribunal in this instance has taken the same approach and wrote to [Ms A] on 16 July 2025 asking whether she had any objection or views regarding the extension application. [Ms A] responded on 23 July 2025 stating that she objected to the extension being allowed, including the following reasons:

'Mr. Miagley was given eight weeks to respond not thirteen. He is a business owner who understands deadlines, legal processes, and financial obligations. His failure to act within the legally mandated time frame is not due to ignorance. ... I respectfully ask the Tribunal to reject this application for extension. He had ample time. He ignored it. That's not our fault - and it should not become our burden.'

1. Usually, a person ought to be able to rely on a decision once it has been made and the appeal time has passed. The Tribunal finds there would be some prejudice to the other parent if the objection was to proceed although it is likely minimal as the issues and evidence in dispute primarily relate to Mr Miagley's financial information. [Ms A] would not be in a position where she is particularly disadvantaged to participate in an objection process because of the passage of time leading to an inability to access relevant evidence. While there is inherently some prejudice to the other parent in allowing an extension of time, in this instance it is likely minimal.

1. The Child Support Guide references any possible effect a proposed change would have on the other parent's entitlement to an income tested pension, allowance or benefit, such as family tax benefit as a relevant consideration under this factor. In this case, it is too difficult to predict what effect a successful objection may have, as any potential departure decision would be of a discretionary nature.
2. The court in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohan [1984] FCA 176 set out a principle that 'considerations of fairness between the applicants and other persons otherwise in a like position are relevant'. In consideration of this principle, the Tribunal asked Mr Miagley if he had any submissions regarding why he ought to be able to lodge an objection outside the time limit that applies to others. Mr Miagley had no submissions to make specifically in regard to this consideration.
3. Mr Miagley gave evidence of his stress and anxiety regarding the situation of his separation and related proceedings as his primary reason for delay. However, the Tribunal recognises that the stress of separation and associated child support and legal proceedings is a factor commonly present in many child support cases. To grant him an extension on that basis would be unfair to other persons in a like position.

1. The legislature has determined that objections should be lodged within a certain period in most cases. The Tribunal has carefully considered the relevant factors for and against granting an extension of time in this matter. While the Tribunal considers that the objection has merit, Mr Miagley did not fully participate in the original decision and provide the requested financial documentation at the time, and then rested on his rights to object, albeit for a reasonably short period, after the decision was received. The original decision is now over a year ago. Mr Miagley's evidence is that the financial circumstances of the parties have changed in that time, and will likely be changing again shortly due to property settlement. Because the circumstances of the parties have changed, Mr Miagley has the ability to apply for a new change of assessment for a period up to 18 months prior to the date of any future application. This could cover a large period of the decision in question depending on the date any circumstances changed and whether a future decision maker found such a retrospective determination appropriate.
2. In these circumstances, and in particular considering the fairness between this applicant and other persons in a like position, the Tribunal has decided that it is appropriate to refuse the application for an extension of time. Mr Miagley can discuss a new application for a change of assessment with Child Support if he has not already done so.