Amjad and Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal

[2016] AATA 444

Amjad and Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2016] AATA 444 (29 June 2016)

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number	2016/2366
Re	Farazeen Amjad
APPLICANT
And	Registrar, Administrative Appeals Tribunal
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Senior Member J F Toohey
Date	29 June 2016
Place	Sydney

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

........................[sgd]................................................

Senior Member J F Toohey

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether filing fee for the application for review should be reduced – whether payment of the fee would cause financial hardship – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 34J

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015, regs 20, 21 and 28

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member J F Toohey

29 June 2016

BACKGROUND

1. On 8 March 2016, Farazeen Amjad applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) that she owes $15,240 in fees because she withdrew from her studies after the “census date”. 

2. Ordinarily, an applicant seeking review must pay a filing fee.  The fee for Ms Amjad’s application was $861.00.  The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Regulation 2015 state that the fee may be reduced to $100 if payment of the full fee would cause, or has caused, financial hardship to the applicant: reg 20 and reg 21. 

3. Ms Amjad asked for the prescribed fee for her application for review to be reduced on the ground that payment would cause her financial hardship.  On 4 May 2016, an officer of the Tribunal decided, on behalf of the Registrar of the Tribunal, that payment of the full fee would not cause Ms Amjad financial hardship.

   REVIEW OF THE REGISTRAR’S DECISION

4. A decision not to make an order to reduce a filing fee may be reviewed by the Tribunal: reg 28.

5. If it appears to the Tribunal that the application can be determined by considering the documents or other material lodged with the Tribunal, and if the parties to an application consent, the Tribunal may review the decision without holding a hearing: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 34J.

6. I am satisfied that Ms Amjad’s application for review can be determined on the information she has provided. As both she and the Registrar have consented to the Tribunal making a decision on the information lodged with the Tribunal, I will do so.

   MS AMJAD’S FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

7. In a Statement of Financial Position completed on 8 June 2016, Ms Amjad provided the following information in support of her application for review of the decision that she must pay the full filing fee:

   ·she and her husband have a combined (take home) income of $4500 per fortnight of which she earns $1850 (unless she is off work for any reason) and her husband earns $2650;

   ·their combined fortnightly expenses total $4605;

   ·they own an unencumbered motor vehicle.

8. Ms Amjad stated that she has $550 in a bank account and her husband has $1950 in a bank account.  He gives her $150 per fortnight for “pocket money”.  She lists her fortnightly expenses as:

   ·rent  $1000

   ·other loan repayments  $1000

   ·insurance premiums  $75

   ·food  $800

   ·clothing  $300

   ·spouse maintenance    $150 (this appears to be “pocket money”)

   ·travel and motor vehicle  $300

   ·utilities   $100

   ·telephone  $80

   ·health care  $200 + $200

   ·gym  $50

   ·family support  $350

   TOTAL:  $4605

9. I understand the reference in the form to Ms Amjad’s personal expenses as a reference to their combined expenses.

10. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 8 June 2016, Ms Amjad states that she “wants to deal with this issue” on her own. She asks that the Tribunal focus only on her “personal financial situation”. She does not want her husband to be “a part of this issue” as the matter is between UNSW and herself.  Further, she states that her husband is supporting her financially and pays her an allowance to supplement her income.  In evidence submitted in support of her application, Ms Amjad states that to assist with her Master’s degree, her husband and his family lent her approximately $25,000 which she is trying to repay.

11. Ms Amjad states that she is now pregnant and might not be working after another month or so “due to health complications”.  She states that she expects that her expenses will further increase over the course of her pregnancy.  She plans to have her mother come from overseas to look after her after the birth, and her husband’s family will visit as well, which will add to her expenses. 

    WOULD PAYMENT OF THE FULL FEE CAUSE MS AMJAD FINANCIAL HARDSHIP?

12. Whether a payment would cause financial hardship will always depend on an individual’s circumstances.  On the information before me, the combined income of Ms Amjad and her husband accounts for all of their living expenses.  However, their expenses are stated to include $400 per fortnight in health care without any clear indication of why they are so high.  The amount of $800 per fortnight for two people appears generous.  It is not clear what $350 in family support relates to.  In particular, Ms Amjad cannot reasonably claim   money that her husband gives her as “pocket money” as an expense.

13. Other than the money that Ms Amjad says her husband and his family lent her for her studies, there is no evidence that either of them has any debt to speak of.  Even if I accept that she is required to repay her husband and his family the money lent for her studies, it does not appear they are pressing for repayment.

14. I do not accept Ms Amjad’s contention that her husband’s income and expenses should be disregarded when considering whether payment of the full fee would cause her financial hardship.  She is a member of a couple and there is nothing to suggest that she and her husband do not obtain the benefit of pooling of resources that other couples ordinarily obtain.  According to the information she has provided, their combined fortnightly expenses only just exceed their fortnightly income, and they include $150 in “pocket money”, apparently as an expense of her husband’s, which cannot reasonably be included as an expense; if it is an expense then, equally, it is part of her income and, on that basis, their fortnightly income meets their expenses.  As well, they have savings.  I am not satisfied that payment of the full fee would cause her financial hardship.

    CONCLUSION

15. For these reasons, I am not satisfied, on the information before me, that payment of the full fee would cause Ms Amjad financial hardship and I affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 15 (fifteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey

.........................[sgd]...............................................

Associate

Dated 29 June 2016

Date of hearing 27 June 2016 (heard on the papers)