Commonwealth of Australia v Harrison

Link copied
Case Copied 42 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Commonwealth of Australia v Harrison [2019] FCA 937

File number: NSD 2074 of 2018
Judge: PERRY J
Date of judgment: 19 June 2019
Catchwords: EDUCATION – multiple alleged contraventions of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) – where, among other things, the respondent offered to provide Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses or parts of VET courses, and purported to issue VET statements of attainment and VET qualifications, when the respondent was not a registered training organisation and the VET statements of attainment and VET qualifications were not genuine – application for default judgment under rule 5.23, Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – where the respondent was in default and had every opportunity to participate in the proceeding – application granted – declarations made
Legislation:

National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) ss 117, 125, 127, 129, 131

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 5.23(2)
Cases cited:

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Adata (Vic) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015] FCA 583

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd (in liq) [2007] FCAFC 146; (2007) 161 FCR 513

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Dataline.Net.Au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427; (2006) 236 ALR 665

Director of Consumer Affairs v Nightingale Electrics Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 279

Hipages Group Pty Ltd v Reach Aussie Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 112

Lenijamar Pty Ltd v AGC (Advances) Limited (1990) 27 FCR 388

Professional Administration Service Centres Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCAFC 180; (2012) 295 ALR 52

Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227

Titan Support Systems Inc v Nguyen [2014] FCA 884

Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1129
Date of hearing: 11 June 2019
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 81
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Melican
Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent did not appear

ORDERS

NSD 20724 of 2018
BETWEEN:

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant
AND:

DONNA AMANDA HARRISON

Respondent

JUDGE:

PERRY J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 JUNE 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant pursuant to rule 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) against the Respondent.

UPON ADMISSIONS WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS TAKEN TO HAVE MADE, AND UPON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COURT RULES 2011 AND ORDERS OF THE COURT, FAILURE TO ATTEND A HEARING IN THE PROCEEDING, AND FAILURE TO DEFEND THE PROCEEDING WITH DUE DILIGENCE, IT IS DECLARED THAT:

2.In the period from 23 January 2015 to 8 November 2016, the Respondent (Ms Harrison) contravened s 117(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act) on 134 occasions because she offered to provide all or part of a VET course, either in South Australia (to persons either in South Australia or Queensland)…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commonwealth of Australia v Harrison and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] FCA 937
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), brought a case against Ms. Christine Harrison, trading as Glow Salon, alleging that she contravened the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (the Act). The Commonwealth sought a default judgment under rule 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for multiple alleged contraventions by Ms. Harrison, including offering to provide Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses without being a registered training organisation (RTO) and purporting to issue VET statements of attainment and VET qualifications that were not genuine.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Commonwealth had properly pleaded its case, whether there was any reason to not grant the declaratory relief sought, and if the Commonwealth was entitled to the relief claimed. The Court considered whether the Commonwealth had demonstrated that Ms. Harrison was in default and had every opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The Court also assessed if the claim fell within its jurisdiction and if each element of the relevant civil wrong was properly pleaded.

The Court found that the Commonwealth had properly pleaded its case and that there was no reason in the exercise of discretion not to grant the declaratory relief sought. The Court accepted that Ms. Harrison was in default and had every opportunity to participate in the proceeding. The Court concluded that the Commonwealth was entitled to the relief claimed and granted the application for default judgment. The Court made several declarations against Ms. Harrison, including that she contravened various sections of the Act by offering to provide VET courses without being an RTO and by purporting to issue non-genuine VET statements of attainment and VET qualifications. The Court ordered judgment in favour of the Commonwealth and detailed the specific contraventions committed by Ms. Harrison.

The final orders included judgments in favour of the Commonwealth, declarations regarding Ms. Harrison's contraventions of the Act, and amendments to the future timetabling of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Commonwealth could seek additional evidence and submissions on pecuniary penalties and costs if the Court granted the declaratory relief sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in favour of the Applicant pursuant to rule 5.23 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) against the Respondent.

UPON ADMISSIONS WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS TAKEN TO HAVE MADE, AND UPON NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL COURT RULES 2011 AND ORDERS OF THE COURT, FAILURE TO ATTEND A HEARING IN THE PROCEEDING, AND FAILURE TO DEFEND THE PROCEEDING WITH DUE DILIGENCE, IT IS DECLARED THAT:

2. In the period from 23 January 2015 to 8 November 2016, the Respondent (Ms Harrison) contravened s 117(1) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act) on 134 occasions because she offered to provide all or part of a VET course, either in South Australia (to persons either in South Australia or Queensland) or in and throughout Australia, and on each of those occasions she was not an NVR registered training organisation, as follows:

(a) Between 23 January and 27 January 2015, Ms Harrison, in South Australia, offered to provide Ms Kelly Bainbridge, in Queensland, 4 parts of a VET course concerning waxing, facial, lash and brow treatments and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(b) Between 29 March 2015 and 30 March 2015, Ms Harrison, in South Australia, offered to provide Ms Tahlee Bridges, in Queensland, a VET course concerning hairdressing when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(c) On 29 March 2015, Ms Harrison, in South Australia, offered to provide Ms Kate Matthews, in South Australia, 4 parts of a VET course concerning applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments, designing and applying make-up, remedial camouflage make-up and make-up for photography, when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(d) On 4 November 2015, Ms Harrison, in South Australia, offered to provide Ms Bridges, in Queensland, a VET course concerning hairdressing when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(e) Between November 2015 and January 2016, Ms Harrison, in South Australia, offered to provide Mr Craig Hasch, in South Australia, a VET course concerning hairdressing when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(f) As at 2 August 2016, Ms Harrison was offering to provide, on a Facebook profile associated with her business, Glow Salon, in and throughout Australia, a total of 45 VET courses or parts of VET courses concerning beauty treatments and hairdressing, when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(g) As at 4 August 2016, Ms Harrison was offering to provide, on a Facebook profile associated with her business, Glow Salon, in and throughout Australia, a total of 40 VET courses or parts of VET courses concerning training and assessment, beauty treatments and hairdressing when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(h) As at 5 August 2016, Ms Harrison was offering to provide, on the website glowsalon.biz, in and throughout Australia, a total of 29 VET courses or parts of VET courses concerning beauty treatments, hairdressing and fashion styling when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

(i) As at 8 November 2016, Ms Harrison was offering to provide, on the website glowacademy.webs.com, in and throughout Australia, a total of 9 VET courses or parts of VET courses concerning beauty treatments and hairdressing when she was not an NVR registered training organisation.

3. In the period from 19 February 2015 to 26 April 2016, Ms Harrison contravened s 129 of the NVR Act on a total of 5 occasions when she purported to issue 5 statements as VET statements of attainment and on each occasion those statements were not genuine VET statements of attainment as follows:

(a) On 19 February 2015, Ms Harrison purported to issue Ms Kerrie-Ann Ditz a statement concerning hair extensions as a VET statement of attainment when that statement was not genuine.

(b) On 14 March 2015, Ms Harrison purported to issue Ms Bainbridge a statement concerning waxing, facial, lash and brow techniques as a VET statement of attainment when that statement was not genuine.

(c) On 22 December 2015, Ms Harrison purported to issue Ms Matthews a statement concerning designing and applying make-up and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments as a VET statement of attainment when that statement was not genuine.

(d) On 19 April 2016, Ms Harrison purported to issue Ms Leanne Taylor a statement concerning cosmetic tattooing and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments as a VET statement of attainment when that statement was not genuine.

(e) On 29 April 2016, Ms Harrison purported to issue Ms Ditz a statement concerning cosmetic tattooing and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments as a VET statement of attainment when that statement was not genuine.

4. On 24 October 2015, Ms Harrison contravened s 127 of the NVR Act on 1 occasion when she purported to issue Ms Ditz a qualification concerning nail technology as a VET qualification when that statement was not genuine.

5. In the period from 19 February 2015 to 29 April 2016, Ms Harrison contravened s 125 of the NVR Act on a total of 6 occasions because she provided 5 statements and 1 qualification which, in the case of the statements, she falsely represented were genuine VET statements of attainment and, in the case of the qualification, she falsely represented was a genuine VET qualification, as follows:

(a) On 19 February 2015, Ms Harrison provided Ms Ditz a statement concerning hair extensions falsely representing to Ms Ditz that it was a genuine VET statement of attainment.

(b) On 14 March 2015, Ms Harrison provided Ms Bainbridge a statement concerning waxing, facial, lash and brow techniques falsely representing to Ms Bainbridge that it was a genuine VET statement of attainment.

(c) On 22 December 2015, Ms Harrison provided Ms Matthews a statement concerning designing and applying make-up and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments falsely representing to Ms Matthews that it was a genuine VET statement of attainment.

(d) On 24 October 2015, Ms Harrison provided Ms Ditz a qualification concerning nail technology falsely representing to Ms Ditz that it was a genuine VET qualification.

(e) On 19 April 2016, Ms Harrison provided Ms Taylor a statement concerning cosmetic tattooing and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments falsely representing to Ms Taylor that it was a genuine VET statement of attainment.

(f) On 29 April 2016, Ms Harrison provided Ms Ditz a statement concerning cosmetic tattooing and applying the principles of skin biology to beauty treatments falsely representing to Ms Ditz that it was a genuine VET statement of attainment.

6. On 27 July 2016, Ms Harrison contravened s 131(1) of the NVR Act on 2 occasions because she created or otherwise obtained 2 bogus VET qualifications in her own name concerning hairdressing and training and assessment, and on 27 July 2016 displayed each of those 2 bogus VET qualifications in premises from which she conducted a business and purported to hold out each of them as a legitimate VET qualification.

7. On 27 July 2016, Ms Harrison contravened s 125 of the NVR Act on 2 occasions because she created or otherwise obtained 2 fabricated qualifications in her own name concerning hairdressing and training and assessment, and on 27 July 2016 displayed them in premises from which she conducted a business and falsely represented that each of the 2 qualifications was a legitimate VET qualification issued to her by an RTO.

8. In the period from 29 March 2015 to 27 July 2016, Ms Harrison contravened s 125 of the NVR Act on a total of 6 occasions because, in providing information to students and members of the public about VET courses or courses held out as such, Ms Harrison made false representations about her relationship with RTOs as follows:

(a) On 29 March 2015, in providing information to Ms Bainbridge about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, Ms Harrison represented that she was affiliated with a genuine RTO, Adelaide Institute of Hair & Beauty Pty Ltd (AIHB), when in fact she was not.

(b) On 4 November 2015, in providing information to Ms Bridges and others about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, Ms Harrison represented that her business, Glow Salon, was associated with, or part of, an RTO known as ‘Ainos Education’, when in fact Ainos Education was not and is not an RTO.

(c) On 25 November 2015, in providing information to Ms Bridges about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, Ms Harrison represented that her business, Glow Salon, was associated with, or part of, an RTO known as ‘Ainos Education’, when in fact Ainos Education was not and is not an RTO.

(d) On 27 January 2016, in providing information to Ms Bridges and others about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, Ms Harrison represented that her business, Glow Salon, was ‘partnered’, or had an agreement, with the genuine RTO Sunbury College of Hair & Beauty Pty Ltd (Sunbury College), when in fact it was neither partnered nor had an agreement with Sunbury College.

(e) On 23 March 2016, in providing information to Ms Taylor about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, Ms Harrison represented that her business, Glow Salon, was ‘partnered’, or had an agreement, with the genuine RTO Sunbury College, when in fact it was neither partnered nor had an agreement with Sunbury College.

(f) On 27 July 2016, in providing information about a VET course concerning hairdressing or a course held out as such, on a poster displayed in premises from which she conducted her business, Glow Salon, Ms Harrison represented that the genuine RTO trading as Advanced Careers College was Glow Salon’s ‘training provider’ when it fact it was not.

9. Order 5 of the orders made on 11 June 2019 is amended so as to refer in place of 13 August 2019 to the date 21 August 2019.

THE COURT NOTES THAT:

10. The future timetabling of the remainder of the proceedings is addressed in the orders made on 11 June 2019.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

For the reasons I explain below, I accept on the face of the statement of claim that each of the elements of each alleged contravention of the Act has been properly pleaded, that the Commonwealth is entitled to the relief claimed, and that there is no reason in the exercise of discretion not to grant the declaratory relief sought. I do not, however, at this stage consider whether pecuniary penalties ought to be granted or any order as to costs. The Commonwealth has indicated that it intends to file and serve additional evidence and submissions on these matters in the event that the Court should grant the declaratory relief sought. 2. EVIDENCE The Commonwealth relies upon the following affidavits in support of the application for default judgment:(1)the affidavits of Ms Nicolette Francine Strauss affirmed on 20 May 2019 (the primary affidavit), 18 December 2018 (the substituted service affidavit) and 6 June 2019 dealing with service of the application for default judgment (the third affidavit of service); and(2)the affidavits of Mr David Anderson, process server at Wise McGrath, sworn on 21 December 2018 and 31 January 2019 (the first and second affidavits of service respectively).3. KEY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT It is helpful to begin by briefly summarising key provisions of the Act so as to put the proceeding in its broader context. I note that in the time period in which the alleged contraventions occurred, the Act was amended on several occasions. While I have considered the version of the Act in force at the time of each contravention, the Commonwealth advised the Court by email on 18 June 2019 that “the only material amendment to [the Act] during the period of 23 January 2015 to 8 November 2016 was the insertion of the new civil penalty provision, s 123B”. At the hearing, the Commonwealth explained that it no longer pressed the alternative declarations at paragraphs [2.1]-[2.3] of the originating application because s 123B of the Act was not in force at the time of the alleged contraventions. The objects of the Act are set out in s 2A as follows: (a) to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and(b) to regulate VET using:(i) a standards‑based quality framework; and(ii) risk assessments, where appropriate; and(c) to protect and enhance:(i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and(ii) Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and(d) to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and(e) to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and(f) to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET. These objects are sought to be achieved by the highly regulated scheme established by the Act which is to the following effect. Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 2 of the Act provides for persons and bodies to apply to the National VET Regulator for registration or renewal of registration as a NVR registered training organisation (RTO). In deciding whether or not to grant an application, the Regulator is required to consider whether the applicant complied with the VET Quality Framework and applicable conditions of registration set out in Subdiv B of Div 1 (s 17(2) of the Act). Registration cannot be for a period in excess of 7 years (5 years, prior to 3 April 2015) (s 17(5)) and conditions may be imposed on registration under s 29(1) (see also s 17(6)). A RTO must comply with the conditions set out in ss 22-28 of the Act (s 21), including the standards for RTOs, the Australian Qualifications Framework, and the Data Provision Requirements (s 22), as well as any general directions given by the Regulator (s 28). The Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (the 2015 RTO Standards) were made under ss 185(1) and (2) of the Act and form part of the VET Quality Framework, being “a system which ensures the integrity of nationally recognised qualifications” (2015 RTO Standards at p. 5). The purpose of the 2015 RTO Standards is to: 1.set out the requirements that an organisation must meet in order to be an RTO;2.ensure that training products delivered by RTOs meet the requirements of training packages or VET accredited courses, and have integrity for employment and further study; and3.ensure RTOs operate ethically with due consideration of learners’ and enterprises’ needs. (2015 RTO Standards at p. 5)

Decision

Reasons for decision

Furthermore, Subdiv B of Div 1 of Part 6 creates various offences and civil penalty provisions for breaches of provisions proscribing conduct by persons or entities that are not a RTO. The civil penalty provisions relevantly provide for the imposition of civil penalties where:(1)a person provides all or part of a VET course in a referring State or Territory and the person is not a RTO (s 117(1));(2)a person who is not a RTO:(a)purports to issue a VET qualification (s 119);(b)purports to issue a VET statement of attainment (s 121);(c)makes a representation that relates to a course or part of a course held out as being part of a VET course or purported VET qualification which is false or misleading in a material particular (s 125);(d)purports to issue a qualification as a VET qualification which is not a VET qualification (s 127)(e)purports to issue a statement as a VET statement of attainment which is not a VET statement of attainment (s 129); or(3)a natural person purports to hold out a qualification as a VET qualification which the person knows or ought reasonably to have known is not a VET qualification (s 131).4. PRINCIPLES APPLYING TO THE DISCRETION TO GRANT JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT Rule 5.23(2) of the FCR relevantly provides that:If a respondent is in default, an applicant may apply to the Court for:…(c) if the proceeding was started by an originating application supported by a statement of claim, or if the Court has ordered that the proceeding continue on pleadings - an order giving judgment against the respondent for the relief claimed in the statement of claim to which the Court is satisfied that the applicant is entitled; or(d) an order giving judgment against the respondent for damages to be assessed, or any other order; or...Note 1: The Court may make any order that the Court considers appropriate in the interests of justice - see rule 1.32.Note 2: An order or judgment under this Division may be set aside or varied. Rule 5.22 sets out the circumstances in which a party is in default, namely: A party is in default if the party fails to: (a) do an act required to be done, or to do an act in the time required, by these Rules; or (b) comply with an order of the Court; or (c) attend a hearing in the proceeding; or (d) prosecute or defend the proceeding with due diligence. First, as the Commonwealth submits, the requirement in r 5.23(2)(c) that the Court be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to relief on the statement of claim before judgment is entered against the respondent does not require proof by way of evidence of the applicant’s claim. Rather as I explained in Hipages Group Pty Ltd v Reach Aussie Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 112 (Hipages):20. … it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a claim for the relief sought on the face of the statement of claim: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v dataline.net.au Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2007] FCAFC 146; (2007) 161 FCR 513 (Dataline (FCAFC)) at [42] (the Court); Searson v Salmon [2014] FCA 748 (Searson) at [6]; Titan Support Systems Inc v Nguyen [2014] FCA 884 (Titan) at [4]. Accordingly, the Court must be satisfied that the claim falls within its jurisdiction and each element of the relevant civil wrong must be properly and [discretely] pleaded: Titan at [4]. As I explained in Titan: 5. The reason why in general it is not appropriate to lead evidence on a default judgment is that the allegations contained in the statement of claim are taken to be admitted. Therefore considerations of fairness require that the admission of evidence to supplement the statement of claim be, in general, refused: ACCC v Dataline (2006) 236 ALR 665 at 678 [48] Kiefel J. 21 It follows that it would not be appropriate to allow reliance upon evidence that would alter the pleaded case or add to it where the matters which are the subject of evidence ought properly to have been pleaded: Dataline (FCAFC) at [42]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v dataline.net.au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1427; (2006) 236 ALR 665 (Dataline (FCA)) at [50]-[51] (Kiefel J); Titan at [6]. See also Yeo v Damos Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1129 (Yeo) at [9] (Gordon J); and Speedo Holdings BV v Evans (No 2) [2011] FCA 1227 (Speedo Holdings) at [18] and [23] (Flick J).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

I agree with the Commonwealth’s submission that by analogy, these considerations are relevant also to an application under r 5.23(2)(c) such as that made here. 5. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT5.1 Background to, and overview of, the alleged contraventions Ms Harrison conducted a business located in South Australia variously known as “Glow”, “Glow Salon”, “Glow Salon Hair and Beauty Training”, “Glow Salon & Academy”, and “Glow Salon Hair & Beauty Treatment Academy” (Glow Salon) (statement of claim at [5]-[6]). Ms Harrison operated, and either maintained or caused to be maintained, a Glow Salon email address, together with a Facebook account associated with Glow Salon at facebook.com/glow salon.academy (the Glow Salon Facebook page) and websites associated with Glow Salon at glowsalon.biz (the glowsalon.biz website) and glowacdemy.webs.com (the glowacdemy.webs.com website) (together the Glow Salon websites). At all material times, training packages endorsed by the Ministerial Council (as defined in s 3 of the Act) were:(1)SIH11 - Hairdressing Training Package first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 23 June 2011;(2)SIB10 - Beauty Training Package first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 23 September 2010;(3)HLT07 - Health Training Package first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 30 November 2006;(4)TAE10 - Training and Education Training Package first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 14 February 2011; and(5)SHB - Hairdressing and Beauty Services Training Package first endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 22 September 2015.(statement of claim at [12]) Schedule 1 to the statement of claim lists the qualifications which were either included in the training packages set out above or a VET accredited course; and were a VET course within the meaning of s 3 of the Act (statement of claim at [13]). Schedule 2 in turn lists each of the units of competency which were, from the date specified in the schedule, included in the training packages set out above and were at all material times a unit of competency and part of at least one VET course (statement of claim at [14]). Against that background, the Commonwealth’s primary allegations to found the grant of declaratory and other relief may be summarised as follows. First, the Commonwealth alleges that Ms Harrison contravened s 117(1) of the Act on 134 occasions in the period between 23 January 2015 and 8 November 2016 because she offered to provide all or part of a VET course in South Australia to individuals in South Australia and Queensland, and in and throughout Australia via the Facebook page and Glow Salon websites, despite the fact that neither she nor Glow Salon were a RTO under the Act (originating application at [1]; statement of claim at [15]-[207]). I note in this regard that, as the Commonwealth submitted, each representation on each page within a website constituted a separate contravention of the Act. Secondly, the Commonwealth contends that Ms Harrison issued VET statements of attainment and a VET qualification to individuals between 19 February 2015 and 26 April 2016 when they were not genuine VET statements of attainment or a genuine VET qualification contrary to ss 129 and 127 of the Act respectively (originating application at [3] and [5]; statement of claim at [211]-[258]).