Bradley and Secretary, Department of Education and Training (General)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The applicant, Mr Bradley, sought to have his HECS-HELP debt remitted for units of study completed between 2002 and 2005 towards a Bachelor of Human Movement degree. The University had declined his remission application, and a subsequent appeal to the University’s Complaints Appeal Committee was not heard on the basis that it did not address the limited grounds specified in the University’s Remission Policy. Mr Bradley had previously withdrawn an application for review to the Tribunal, and the current application was for an extension of time to lodge a further application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Mr Bradley an extension of time to lodge his application for review. This required the Tribunal to consider the principles for granting an extension of time, including the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the substantive application. The Tribunal also had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the University's decision, which depended on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* (Cth) and the *Higher Education Funding Act 1988* (Cth).

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen*, considering the applicant's explanation for the delay and the merits of his substantive case. The Tribunal found that Mr Bradley had completed all the units of study for which he sought remission between 2002 and 2005. Consequently, the Secretary had no legislative power to remit the debt under section 36.20 of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* or section 106L of the *Higher Education Funding Act 1988*, as these provisions require that the student has not completed the unit requirements. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the University's decision as it was not a decision reviewable under the relevant legislation.

Given that the substantive matter had no merit and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the decision, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was reasonable in the circumstances to grant the extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.