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 review concerns a decision made by Services Australia (Child Support) on 11 November 2024 to refuse Mr Scamberton an extension of time to object to a decision made on 27 July 2024. Mr Scamberton is the paying parent in a child support assessment (the assessment) for [Child 1], who is in the above primary care of his mother.
2. By letter dated 27 July 2024, Child Support notified Mr Scamberton of a decision to allow an objection to the child support assessment (the assessment), and to substitute a decision that for the period 1 July 2024 to 31 October 2027, Mr Scamberton's adjusted taxable income is set at $120,000. Prior to this, the assessment had been based on a provisional income amount for Mr Scamberton of $22,149.
3. On 18 October 2024, Mr Scamberton lodged a written objection to the decision of 27 July 2024, along with an application to extend the time allowed for an objection to be accepted.
4. On 11 November 2024, Child Support declined to extend the time period for lodgement of the objection to the decision of 27 July 2024.
5. Mr Scamberton sought a review of this decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 6 December 2024.
6. Mr Scamberton participated in a video hearing on 14 March 2025 and gave oral evidence. Other evidence before the Tribunal was in the hearing papers containing material provided by Child Support (155 pages).

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.
2. The issue which arises in this case is whether Mr Scamberton should be granted an extension of time to lodge his objection to the decision made by Child Support on 27 July 2024.

1. Subsection 80(1) of the Act provides that a person may lodge an objection in writing in relation to specified decisions made by Child Support. Section 81 of the Act provides that a person must lodge an objection to such a decision within 28 days after a notice of the decision is served on them.
2. Section 82 of the Act provides that beyond the 28-day period, a person may submit an objection along with an application for an extension of time, requesting Child Support to treat the objection as having been duly lodged. The application 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 within time.
3. Child Support must consider and either grant or refuse the application for an extension of time. If the application is granted, then the person is taken to have lodged the objection (section 83 of the Act). If the application for an extension of time is not granted, a person may apply to this Tribunal for review of a decision on an application for an extension of time (section 89 of the Act).
4. Notice of a decision may be served pursuant to the provisions of child support legislation. This includes sending the notice by prepaid post to that person's address for service. Unless the contrary is proven, then services by prepaid post are taken to have come into effect at the time when the notice would, in the ordinary course of post, have arrived at the address. Where a person has consented to receiving a notice electronically, then service includes delivery of the notice electronically.

Did Mr Scamberton make his objection outside the 28-day period?

1. Based on the documents provided by Child Support, Mr Scamberton was sent a letter dated 27 July 2024 to the address on his record. The letter advised him of the decision changing the assessment and informed him of his right to object to this decision, within 28 days. Mr Scamberton said that he was slow in collecting his mail from the post office box, but that the date stamp on the letter showed it was received at [Suburb 1] on 4 August 2024. He believes that he cleared his post office box in the middle of August - between 16 and 18 August but acknowledges that he could have collected his mail sooner.
2. Mr Scamberton lodged his objection and an extension of time application on 18 October 2024.
3. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Scamberton lodged a written objection to the decision of 27 July 2024, and request for an extension of time on 18 October 2024. This is outside the 28-day timeframe for objection.

1. As the objection was lodged outside the 28 days referred to in section 81 of the Act, the Registrar was required to consider the application for an extension of time, and either grant or refuse the application within 60 days and give written notice of this decision. A failure to make a decision within this time frame is taken to be a refusal of the application, giving rise to review rights in this Tribunal. The Registrar made the decision on 11 November 2024.
2. The Act does not specify the criteria on which the Registrar (or the Tribunal) should exercise the discretion whether or not to grant an extension of time. A number of decisions provide guidance in determining this issue.
3. In Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176 (Hunter Valley Developments) , the Federal Court identified principles (at [18-23]) to be considered in relation to applications for extensions of time. In that case, the Court was considering an application for an extension of time to apply for an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act). The principles articulated by the Federal Court were substantially repeated in the case of Re Mulheron and Australian Telecommunications Corporation [1991] AATA 673 (Mulheron) . In the case of Saxena & Child Support Registrar & Anor (SSAT Appeal) [2010] FMCAfam 1416, the Court stated that the Tribunal, "properly proceeded" by considering the factors in Mulheron when reviewing a decision of the Registrar to refuse an extension of time to object to a decision. The factors are a guide, and not a prescriptive list. Chapter 4.1.5 of the Child Support Guide (the Guide) sets out the factors that the Registrar will consider in determining whether to grant or refuse an application for an extension of time, and these are substantially the same as the principles identified in Hunter Valley Developments.
4. In Hunter Valley Developments, the Federal Court said that in general, applications or proceedings commenced outside of a prescribed time limit will not be considered. Where there is scope to extend this timeframe, the Court 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. At 4.1.5, the Guide articulates these factors as follows:
   • reasons for delay
   • the merits of the objection
   • any prejudice to the other parent
   • whether the parent rested on their rights, and
   • prejudice to the general public.
6. The Tribunal is not bound to follow the policy articulated in the Guide but will do so if it is consistent with the legal principles. On this basis, the Tribunal has taken these factors into account in determining whether the extension of time should be granted in this case.

Reasons for delay and whether Mr Scamberton rested on his rights.

1. Mr Scamberton told the Tribunal that he had contacted Child Support by telephone very soon after receiving the letter as he had questions about the decision. He has phone records to show the calls he has made (but not the calls received), as well as notes he has kept of his phone calls.
2. His records indicate that he called Child Support on 3 September 2024, and waited on hold for about 50 minutes before the call dropped out. He did not get to speak with anyone. He called again on 4 September 2024 and waited on hold for about half an hour before he had to hang up because of work. He called again on 6 September 2024, and, after waiting on hold for some time, spoke to an officer. The total call was around an hour and a half. He said that he can't understand why there is no record of the call in the Child Support papers, because he was asked to identify himself - it was not just an enquiry call. In any event, he said that the person he spoke to led him to believe that he had left it too late, and that the 28-day period started from the date of the decision, not the date it was received. When he asked what his options were, they did not tell him he could lodge an objection with a request to extend the time period if necessary. Instead, they just made suggestions to him about how he could pay the increased amount of child support, including that he could borrow money from his family or get a credit card. His questions about how the decision had been made were not answered.
3. Mr Scamberton struggles with his mental health and lives with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This can create challenges for him in focussing his attention and being organised. After the call on 6 September, he was disheartened and felt the situation was hopeless.
4. He called again on 17 September 2024, after friends encouraged him to keep trying to have his questions answered. The person he spoke to was helpful and they suggested he speak to the decision maker. They took a message for the decision maker to call him back. He did not want to lodge an objection until he had a chance to consider how the decision maker had reached their conclusions. He received a call from the decision maker on 4 October 2024, and they explained the decision.
5. He then spent some time trying to reconcile how the decision maker had calculated the income figure used, however he couldn't reconcile the figures they had used with his own knowledge of his expenses. Once he had considered this, he made his objection.
6. The file note of the phone call of 17 September 2024 (seemingly incorrectly dated as 18 September 2024) confirms that Mr Scamberton wanted to understand the decision before he made an objection, stating "Mr Scamberton advised that before he jump (sic) in to any kind of conclusion he needs clarification on COA decision so I have arranged call back from DM".
7. The Child Support record shows that the decision maker returned the call and left a message for Mr Scamberton on 18 September 2024, before trying again on 4 October 2024.
8. The Child Support record does not include a record of a file note of a call on 6 September 2024, however the Tribunal accepts Mr Scamberton's evidence that such a call did take place, given he has phone records and his own notes of the call. The Tribunal also accepts Mr Scamberton's evidence of his two previous attempts to speak to someone at Child Support on 3 and 4 September 2024, given his phone records showing these calls.
9. The delay in lodging the objection is around 37 days (after the allowable period for objection). Given the attempts Mr Scamberton made earlier in September 2024 to speak with someone about his concerns, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Scamberton did not rest on his rights in trying to pursue this matter. The delay in his lodging his objection (and extension of time application) was not solely due to him but was also due, in part, to the delay in being able to speak with the decision maker to better understand the decision, which is a reasonable approach.
10. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Scamberton has provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in lodging the objection.

1. Mr Scamberton runs a [business]. His income is variable, and he has expenses associated with his business. He has not lodged tax returns or Business Activity Statements (BAS) for a number of years. He did not engage with the COA process at all, despite numerous attempts by the officer considering the COA to contact him. As a result, the decision was made based on figures extrapolated from his bank statements which Child Support obtained directly from his bank. Mr Scamberton told the Tribunal that this was because he was anxious that he was going to be told he owed money, and that he couldn't deal with this at the time. He is aware that this was not the correct way to deal with the situation, but this is one of the ways his anxiety impacts on him. When he received the letter from Child Support asking him to provide financial information, he was expected to respond within a few days, and he couldn't manage this.
2. Mr Scamberton said that he agreed that the assessment was too low and that he should have expected to pay more. However, the decision of 27 July 2024 is "even more wrong". Mr Scamberton says that the assumptions made by the decision maker are not a reasonable reflection of his business expenses and he provides more information about this in his objection. This includes that the bank account the decision maker assumed was his personal account is actually his business account (with some personal expenses included) and does not reflect his personal spending.
3. In DHLD and Executive Director, Social Security Appeals Tribunal [2010] AATA 377, the Tribunal, reviewing a decision of a delegate of the SSAT Principal Member on an extension application, said of the consideration of the merits of the application for review:

"...it is not the occasion on which to embark upon a detailed consideration of the evidence and the merits. The question that must be asked is whether the applicant on the extension application has an arguable case. If, at a substantive hearing, that applicant were able to produce evidence to establish the facts he or she put forward on the extension application, would he or she have an arguable case having regard to the facts put forward and the law against which those facts must be considered?" (at [53])

1. On this basis, the Tribunal does not need to determine what the assessment should be, but simply whether there is potentially some merit to the arguments put forward by Mr Scamberton. Given the information that is now available, which was not available to the original decision maker, the Tribunal considers that Mr Scamberton has an arguable case.

1. Chapter 4.1.5 of the Guide states that the Registrar will consider whether "the outcome of a successful objection would create an overpayment or significant arrears of child support".
2. The delay in this case is relatively short. The Tribunal does not consider that the other parent would be disadvantaged in terms of providing evidence if an extension of time is granted and the objection process proceeds. This will provide an opportunity for the other parent to participate and have their views considered. Mr Scamberton is current in arrears, which indicates that the other parent will likely not have been overpaid in the event that the assessment is changed as a consequence of the objection. The Tribunal did not consider there was any significant prejudice to the other parent in extending the time for the objection to be lodged.

1. This represents two factors identified in Hunter Valley Developments, as "A delay which may result, if the application is successful, in the unsettling of other people or of established practices is likely to prove fatal to the application" (at [21]) and that "Considerations of fairness between the applicants and other persons otherwise in a like position are relevant".
2. Mr Scamberton said that he recognised that he had made his objection outside the time limit, but that he hoped that there was some recognition in the community that it can be difficult for people with mental health issues to cope with situations like this.
3. Time limits to make applications exist for good reasons. However, so do discretionary powers to extend those time limits. Given the relatively short delay and Mr Scamberton's actions in trying to have his questions answered and consider his options, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was no significant prejudice to the general community in allowing an extension of time.

1. The Tribunal has weighed the relevant matters, and is satisfied that Mr Scamberton has a reasonable explanation for the relatively short delay in lodging his objection; that the basis for his objection to the decision of 27 July 2024 is arguable; and that there is no significant prejudice to the other parent or the community in allowing an extension of time for him to object to the decision.

The Tribunal decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute its decision to grant Mr Scamberton an extension of time to object to the decision of 27 July 2024.