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. Mr Petrich and [Ms A] are the separated parents of [Child 1] (born [in] September 2005) and [Child 2] (born [in] February 2008). A child support case has been registered with Services Australia - Child Support (Child Support) since 8 September 2008 and Mr Petrich is liable to pay child support to [Ms A].
2. On 11 August 2023, [Ms A] applied to Child Support for the administrative assessment for [Child 1] to be extended past her 18th birthday to the end of the secondary school year (15 December 2023).
3. On 28 August 2023, [Ms A's] application was accepted. On 1 February 2024, Mr Petrich contacted Child Support to complain about the services he had received from a staff member, and he also lodged a written objection to the decision made on 28 August 2023. He stated that the child support assessment for [Child 1] should not have been extended.
4. On 25 March 2025, Mr Petrich applied for an extension of time to lodge the objection and on 27 March 2025 a decision was made to refuse Mr Petrich an extension of time within which to lodge his objection.
5. On 7 April 2025, Mr Petrich applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for an independent review of Child Support's decision. A hearing into Mr Petrich's application for review was held on 8 July 2025. Mr Petrich attended the hearing by telephone and gave evidence on affirmation.
6. I had before me the statement and documents provided by Child Support pursuant to section 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, received on 30 April 2025 (documents numbered 1-63).

1. The law relating to a person's right to seek review of a decision of the Registrar is contained in the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (the Act). Section 81 of the Act requires that a person must lodge an objection to a decision of the Registrar within 28 days after a notice of the decision is served on them.
2. Where the period for lodgement has ended, the person may send the objection to the Registrar along with an application requesting that the objection be treated as if it was duly lodged, that is, that it was lodged within the allowed time (section 82 of the Act). Section 83 of the Act then provides that the Registrar must consider the application for an extension of time, grant or refuse that application and advise the person of the decision in writing. Section 89 of the Act allows the person who applied for the extension of time, to apply to this Tribunal for a review of that decision.
3. In this case Child Support sent Mr Petrich a letter dated 28 August 2023, notifying him that [Ms A's] application for the child support assessment for [Child 1] to be extended had been accepted. The notice advised that Mr Petrich could ask for a review of that decision within 28 days, from the date he received the letter (page 23). Child Support also called Mr Petrich on 28 August 2023 and advised him of the decision.
4. Mr Petrich thus needed to lodge an objection to the decision with Child Support by about late September 2023, which he did not. He lodged an objection on 1 February 2024, about four months later. This means Mr Petrich requires the extension of time, which he now seeks for his objection to be accepted.

1. The Act does not set out criteria for consideration, but the Child Support Guide (the Guide) provides some guidelines at chapter 10.2.5. Factors to be considered are the reason for the delay, the merits of the objection, whether the person has rested on their rights and any potential prejudice to the other party or the public. In summary, the Guide suggests that it is ultimately a question as to whether the interests of justice favour the grant or refusal of the application in the particular circumstances.
2. The Guide is not part of the legislation, and so I am not bound by it. However, I consider that the factors identified above are relevant and useful and I will discuss how they apply in Mr Petrich's case.
3. The High Court in Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, in dealing with an extension of time case and the general concept of time limitation periods, noted that while an extension of time is the exception to the general rule, there are legislative provisions which in the circumstances of the facts of an individual case, may indicate that justice is served by the general rule being overruled.
4. In making this decision, I have considered the principles for the exercise of a discretion to allow an extension of time as set out in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 (Hunter Valley Developments). In that case the Federal Court said that an extension of time should not be granted unless it was proper to do so, noting that in general, applications or proceedings commenced outside of a prescribed time limit will not be considered. The Court also said that there must be an acceptable explanation for the delay and that it must be fair and equitable in the circumstances to extend time. The Federal Court identified six factors to take into account when deciding whether to grant an extension of time.
5. These principles have more recently been restated in the decision of her honour Collier J in Englezos v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2023] FCA 31. These authorities, Hunter Valley Developments and Englezos, clearly set out the well settled considerations and the factors a decision-maker should take into account in determining whether to exercise the discretion to allow an extension of time.

1. As stated above, Child Support records show that Mr Petrich was advised by letter dated 28 August 2023 that [Ms A's] application (to extend the administrative assessment for [Child 1]) had been accepted. An earlier letter was sent to him on 11 August 2023 advising that [Ms A] had applied for the child support assessment for [Child 1] to be extended (page 10). Both notices were sent to the same address in [Town 1]. Mr Petrich confirmed that this was his address at the time but said that he did not receive the letter dated 11 August 2023. It had been returned to Child Support.
2. Mr Petrich agreed that he spoke with Child Support on 28 August 2023 and that he was aware of the decision to extend [Child 1's] child support assessment. He said that he had objected to the decision at that time.
3. The relevant file note dated 28 August 2023 (page 22) states:

PP [paying parent] did not accept the over 18 application due to not being able to see children. Advised this is not a valid reason as to not being accepted. PP became agitated...Call ended due to PP hanging up before addressing arrears income & possible EW [employer withholding].

1. Records indicate that Mr Petrich contacted Child Support again on 3 October 2023 (page 36). The file note indicates:

[Mr Petrich] said that A18 application for child [Child 1] was blatantly wrong, and he had objected at the time. He has since received information from his parents that [Child 1] is no longer at school and requested she be removed from assessment.

[Mr Petrich] said his dealings with CSA have been terrible to the point of attempting self-harm previously...he feels like every time he speaks with CSA, it causes significant mental issues to reoccur.

He requested that the case be closed on the basis that OP [other party] illegally withheld care of children and that the case was invalid. From 26/12/2009 he had suffered from extreme mental abuse from OP and CSA had perpetuated the problem.

I confirmed that the end date of A18 application could be reviewed but ending the case was beyond my delegation...

[Mr Petrich] was unwill to discuss debt and repeatedly stated that he could not deal with CSA anymore.

1. Records show no other contact from Mr Petrich until his complaint on 1 February 2024 and his written objection of the same date (pages 38-40).
2. Mr Petrich said that he clearly told Child Support on 28 August 2023 that he did not agree with the decision to extend the child support assessment for [Child 1], and this should have been accepted as his objection to the decision.
3. Mr Petrich stated that he disagreed that an objection should be lodged in writing and suggested that "common sense" would suggest that a "verbal objection" to a Child Support decision ought to be accepted.
4. I appreciate Mr Petrich's argument but subsection 80(1) of the Act specifically states that an objection must be in writing; the only exception being an objection against a care percentage decision (e.g. whether a parent has 100% or less care of a child), which do not need to be in writing.
5. I am thus not satisfied that Mr Petrich lodged a valid objection during his contacts with Child Support on 28 August 2023 and 3 October 2023.
6. Mr Petrich said that he has chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is being exacerbated by his contacts with Child Support. Child Support had been aware of his medical issues and had organised for him to be contacted only by a "specialist case worker" who understood the issues. Child Support never followed this procedure, instead he was contacted by multiple different staff members who were unaware of his issues which only served to increase his PTSD symptoms. That is why he had to end the call on 28 August 2023.
7. Mr Petrich suggested that the specialist caseworker ought to have called him back after 28 August 2023 and properly explain the objections process to him; however, this did not happen.
8. Mr Petrich said that he could not recall why he did not contact Child Support sooner or lodge an objection in writing before 1 February 2024. Many things happened in his life around that time. He was assaulted in the street, he broke up with his girlfriend, he had to move house, he was admitted to hospital. He could not recall any specific events but suggested that Child Support should have "done a much better job" of informing him of his objection rights.
9. Based on the evidence before me I am persuaded that Mr Petrich was aware of the decision made on 28 August 2023 to extend the child support assessment for [Child 1], but I am not satisfied that he provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in objecting to the decision.
10. I appreciate that Mr Petrich had significant issues in dealing with Child Support, but records indicate that he had lodged objections previously in 2015 and 2016 and would have been familiar with the process. I therefore find that Mr Petrich has not provided an acceptable excuse for the delay in objecting.

1. Mr Petrich's objection to the decision to extend the assessment for [Child 1] is essentially about her attendance at secondary school. He suggested that Child Support never investigated the circumstances of [Ms A's] application but simply accepted "her word". He had been told by his own parents that [Child 1] was not at school and his parents got that information from [Child 1] herself. Mr Petrich said that he had no other proof and he anticipated that Ms A] would probably disagree with this information.
2. I note here that subsection 151C(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 states that an application to extend the child support assessment beyond 18 years must be accepted in circumstances where the application was made prior to the child's 18thbirthday, where the child was likely to be in full-time secondary education on his/her 18th birthday and where the child's 18th birthday occurred on or before the last day of the secondary school year.
3. [Ms A] did not attend the hearing but Child Support records show that she made the application on 11 August 2023, which was prior to [Child 1's] 18th birthday ([in] September 2023).
4. Mr Petrich said that his objection would probably be unsuccessful as he had no proof that [Child 1] had not been at school at the time of her birthday. He also did not want to proceed with the objection process, as there was no practical impact on the child support assessment even if he was successful. He was assessed at the minimum rate of child support regardless of whether [Child 1] was (or was not) included in the assessment.
5. Mr Petrich said that in lodging this review request he wanted to "send a message" to Child Support that he was going to "fight their decisions" to the fullest extent possible from now on. He was "fed up" with their "discriminatory practices and poor customer service" and would no longer simply accept any of their decisions.
6. As noted above, the legislation provides that a parent can apply for a child support assessment to be extended beyond a child's 18th birthday. If such an application is properly made, it must be accepted.
7. I appreciate Mr Petrich's contentions about the poor service he has experienced from Child Support. Overall, however, I am not persuaded that an objection to the decision made on 28 August 2023 (to accept the application for [Child 1's] child support assessment to be extended) has merit.

1. [Ms A] has not been joined as a party to this review and has not had the opportunity to set out what prejudice she may face if the extension of time is granted. I note that even if Mr Petrich were to be successful in his objection, there would be no impact on the amount of child support payable to [Ms A]. I do not consider that prejudice to the other parent is an influential factor in my consideration of the exercise of the discretion to extend time in this case.

1. Parliament has seen fit to set a time limit for the lodgement of objections so that parents (and Child Support) can act with certainty as to the outcome when the objection period has elapsed. Aside from this general principle, there is no other apparent prejudice to the public were Mr Petrich to be granted an extension of time to object to the decision.
2. Whilst I can identify no factors in this matter that make potential prejudice to the general community a material consideration, I do however place weight on considerations of fairness between Mr Petrich and other persons in a like position by giving due regard to the existence of a statutory time limit for lodging objections. In this case, the objection was lodged over four months after the original decision was made.

1. In this matter, I am not persuaded that there is sufficient justification to exercise the discretion to extend time. I am not satisfied that Mr Petrich provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in objecting and there is no merit in his substantive objection. In my view, the absence of a reasonable explanation and the absence of merit weighs against exercising the discretion to extend time. Consequently, I have not identified any factors, which persuade me that the ordinary time limit should not apply to Mr Petrich's case, and I conclude that the interests of justice are best served by refusing to grant an extension of time.
2. For these reasons, I have therefore decided to affirm the decision under review.