Bahonko v RMIT & Ors

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Bahonko against RMIT University and its Vice-Chancellor. Mr Bahonko sought to challenge the validity of certain regulations made by RMIT under its enabling legislation, arguing they were invalidly made and therefore void. The core of the dispute concerned the proper interpretation of the powers conferred upon RMIT by the *RMIT University Act 1992* (Vic) and the *Statute No 3 of RMIT University* (Statute 3).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether RMIT had the power to make regulations that imposed a financial penalty on students for breaches of academic integrity, and whether Statute 3, which purportedly authorised such regulations, was itself validly made. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the power to make regulations under the *RMIT University Act 1992* (Vic) extended to the imposition of financial penalties, and if Statute 3, which provided for such penalties, was within the scope of the powers granted by the Act.

The High Court held that the power to make regulations under the *RMIT University Act 1992* (Vic) did not extend to the imposition of financial penalties. Their Honours reasoned that the Act conferred a power to make statutes and regulations for the good government and management of the University, but this did not encompass the imposition of pecuniary penalties. Consequently, Statute 3, in so far as it purported to authorise financial penalties, was beyond the powers conferred by the Act and was therefore invalid. The appeal was allowed.