The applicant objected to a decision made by the Child Support Agency (CSA) however lodged his objection after the deadline. The CSA decided not to provide the applicant with an extension of time to lodge his application. The key question for the AAT was whether or not an extension of time should be granted to the applicant for a review of this child support decision. In doing this the AAT had to determine whether the applicant’s reasons for lodging his objection out of time were reasonable, and if so, whether an extension of time would likely support a successful outcome to the original objection.
In this case, the applicant made direct payments to the mother for one of their children’s orthodontic treatment, a cello and school books. He made payments after she sent him invoices for the items. The issue which arises is whether or not any of the four payments made by the father can be credited against his child support liability because they relate to specific types of payments made on behalf of the children.
The applicant, who is employed by the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) as a hair and makeup artist, applied to the AAT for review of a workers compensation decision made by Comcare. The applicant lodged a claim for workers’ compensation as she suffered from an adjustment disorder due to incidents in the workplace. The AAT considered the actions and decisions made by SBS and determined the injury was suffered due to the employer’s reasonable administrative action and that the administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.
Migration and Refugee
The applicant applied to the AAT for review of a decision made by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse to grant her a protection visa. The AAT found that the applicant did not claim to fear serious or significant harm in Bulgaria and admitted that she applied for the protection visa so that she can remain in Australia with her Australian citizen children.
The Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the applicants Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visas because the primary visa applicant was not subject of an approved nomination. The AAT found that the approved position was the same as the one in the applicants’ original visa application. Therefore the business sponsor who would employ the applicant was the same person who nominated the position for approval.
The Department of Home Affairs cancelled the applicant’s visa because he breached his visa conditions by not being enrolled in a registered course. The Department relied on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) database to find that the applicant had “not completed any registered course for which he had been enrolled in” since his arrival in Australia in 2015. However, due to an error in the system the applicant’s full study history was not recorded on PRISMS. The AAT found that the applicant was enrolled in a registered course and complied with the conditions of his student visa.
Social Services (second review)
The applicant claimed and received youth allowance whilst studying at university. He was also granted a student start up scholarship as an ancillary benefit of his youth allowance. In order to qualify for youth allowance and the student start up scholarship, a person must prove they are ‘undertaking full-time study’ or carrying an equivalent full time study load of at least 0.375. The Department of Social Services claimed that the applicant was not enrolled in full-time study and was therefore required to repay Centrelink for overpayments. The AAT had to decide whether the applicant met full time study requirements during the period in question.