Brighton Pacific Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

Brighton Pacific Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of three decisions made by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (the respondent). These decisions included the cancellation of the applicant's registration under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVR Act), the cancellation of its registration for all courses and locations under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), and the refusal of its applications to change its CRICOS registration. The respondent's decisions were based on alleged non-compliance with various regulatory standards, including the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015, the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018, and the ELICOS Standards 2018.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent's decisions to cancel the applicant's registrations under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act were valid, and whether the refusal to vary the applicant's CRICOS registration was justified. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the applicant had indeed failed to comply with its regulatory obligations, particularly concerning the reporting of student information through the Provider Registration and International Student Management Systems (PRISMS), and whether such non-compliance warranted the severe regulatory actions taken by the respondent.

The court found that the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's registration under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act was not supported by sufficient evidence. While the audit report identified non-compliances, the court was not satisfied that these breaches were sufficiently serious or pervasive to justify cancellation. The court noted that the respondent's counsel identified breaches related to PRISMS as the most serious conduct, but the evidence presented did not establish the extent or impact of these breaches to the court's satisfaction. Consequently, the decisions to cancel the applicant's registrations were set aside. However, the court affirmed the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's applications to change its CRICOS registration, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of section 10J(1) of the ESOS Act in relation to these applications.