Cowin and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

This matter concerned an application by Miss Cowin for an extension of time to lodge an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Miss Cowin had undertaken study with Franklyn Scholar, a registered training organisation, incurring a significant VET FEE-HELP debt. Franklyn Scholar's registration was subsequently cancelled, and it was placed into liquidation. Miss Cowin complained to the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, alleging misleading conduct by Franklyn Scholar regarding the cost of the courses and that she had been advised they were government-funded with no personal cost.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Miss Cowin an extension of time to apply for a review of the decision not to re-credit her VET FEE-HELP balance. In considering this, the Tribunal was required to determine if Miss Cowin had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in lodging her application, the merits of her substantive application, and any prejudice to the respondent. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the grounds of her substantive application, namely that she did not sign a request for Commonwealth assistance and that the amount of the loan was excessive, were matters within its jurisdiction to determine.

The Tribunal applied the principles for considering an extension of time application as outlined in *Re Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs and Environment* and endorsed by the High Court in *Tu-Uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*. These principles include examining the explanation for the delay, the applicant's actions, prejudice to the respondent, public policy considerations, the merits of the application, and fairness. The Tribunal found that Miss Cowin was advised of her right to appeal to the AAT within 28 days of the decision made on 24 December 2020. The Tribunal noted that the Secretary opposed the extension, arguing there was no acceptable explanation for the delay and that the substantive application lacked merit because Miss Cowin had completed the units. Furthermore, the Secretary contended that any claim for a reduction in fees charged was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused Miss Cowin's application for an extension of time under s 29(7) of the AAT Act. The Tribunal concluded that it could not review the decision and that to proceed with a hearing would impose unnecessary hardship on the parties.