DSA Ventures Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure)
[2025] ARTA 1902
•19 September 2025
DSA Ventures Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1902 (19 September 2025)
Applicant/s: DSA Ventures Pty Ltd
Respondent: Australian Skills Quality Authority
Tribunal Number: 2024/10109, 2024/10133
Tribunal:General Member R Smith
Place:Adelaide
Date:19 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal dismisses the application
...................................[sgnd].....................................
General Member R Smith
Catchwords
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for stay of decision pending determination of proceedings – cancellation of qualification - failure to comply with Tribunal directions – dismissal of application
Legislation
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) s 56
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 9, 56 100Statement of Reasons
On 3 December 2024, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Respondent) made a decision to cancel the Applicant’s registration as a vocational education and training provider effective from 4 December 2024 and a decision to reject the Applicants registration as a registered training organisation (the Decisions).
On 4 December 2025, the Applicant filed an application in the Tribunal seeking a review of the Decisions. The Applicant concurrently filed an application seeking a stay of the implementation of the Decisions.
In the application, the contact person for the Applicant was listed as the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Omar Elashwah (Mr Elashwah). The application form indicated that at that time, the Applicant was not represented.
On 23 January 2025, the stay application was listed for a directions hearing. The Applicant was represented by Mr Doukas, from Denison Toyer. The Tribunal made directions progressing the stay application which was listed for hearing on 11 March 2025 (January Directions).
In breach of the January Directions, neither the Applicant nor the Respondent filed any material in support of the stay application.
At the hearing on 11 March 2025, the matter was listed for hearing in respect of the stay application. Mr Doukas appeared on behalf of the Applicant. He advised the Tribunal the Applicant no longer pursued a stay of the Decisions and the application was withdrawn. Directions were made progressing the substantive application for review and a directions hearing was listed for 15 July 2025 (March Directions).
The Applicant failed to comply with Direction 1 of the March directions when it did not file evidence on or before 6 May 2025
On 13 May 2025, a paralegal from Denison Toyer sent an email to the Registry which stated in part: ‘We are writing to advise that we have attempted to gain instructions from DSA Ventures but have not heard back. We can only assume that we are no longer instructed.’
On 16 May 2025, the Respondent’s solicitors sent an email to the Registry requesting a directions hearing in order to ascertain whether the Applicant intended to proceed with the application. In their communication, the Respondent set out the Applicant’s non-compliance with the March Directions and their failure to responded to communications from the Respondent.
A directions hearing was convened on 13 June 2025. At the hearing the Applicant was represented by Mr Sameer from Executive Law Group. Directions were made progressing the substantive review and the matter was listed for a telephone case management directions hearing on 10 October 2025 (June Directions).
The Applicant failed to comply with Direction 1 of the June directions when it did not file evidence on or before 8 August 2025.
On 12 August 2025, the Respondent’s solicitor sent an email to the Registry requesting the proceeding be dismissed. In the communication, the Respondent set out the Applicant’s non-compliance with the June Directions and the communications to the Applicant’s lawyers which were unanswered. The Respondent invited the Tribunal to list the matter for a directions hearing for the purpose of considering the dismissal application.
On the same day, a partner from the executive Law Group sent an email to the Registry confirming they had ceased to act for the Applicant.
The proceeding was listed for a non-compliance hearing on 21 August 2025. Mr Elashwah attended the hearing. He advised the Tribunal that he was no longer the CEO of the Applicant, and he had understood the application for review had been withdrawn by the Applicant’s solicitors.
The Tribunal confirmed with Mr Elashwah that it had only received notice that Executive Law Group had ceased to act, and it had not received a notice of withdrawal of the application for review. The proceedings were adjourned to allow Mr Elashwah an opportunity to confirm those matters to the Tribunal in writing.
The application for review was listed for a further non -compliance hearing on 4 September 2025. A copy of the directions and the listing notice was sent to an email purportedly that the Applicant in addition to the personal email address of Mr Elashwah.
On 3 September 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Registry attaching:
·an ASIC extract for the Applicant dated 21 August 2025 which recorded the director as Raad Almashkor (Mr Almashkor);
·a letter from the Respondent to Mr Almashkor enclosing the August directions; and
·a letter to the Tribunal outlining the matters relied upon in the dismissal application.
On 4 September 2025, Mr Elashwah provided a notice of withdrawal to the Registry. The Tribunal declined to process the notice of withdrawal in circumstances where Mr Elashwah was no longer the CEO of the Applicant. The Tribunal did excuse him from attending the directions hearing noting that he had already advised that he no longer pursued the review and had understood the matter to have been finalised.
The Respondent attended the non-compliance hearing. Mr Aviram confirmed there had been no response to the correspondence sent to Mr Almashkor and they pressed their application for dismissal.
The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application at the non-compliance hearing ad confirmed short written reasons would follow.
Section 100 of the ART Act allows the Tribunal to dismiss an application if the Applicant fails to either proceed with an application or comply with the Act or an order of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding, in a reasonable time.
Section 9 of the ART Act sets out the Tribunal’s objectives which includes that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense and the proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits. In order to achieve this objective, it is important for the Tribunal to actively manage the progress of cases.
Section 56 of the ART Act requires that parties and their representatives conduct proceedings before the Tribunal in a manner that supports the Tribunal to achieve its objectives. The necessarily includes complying with the Tribunal’s directions.
The Tribunal was satisfied the Applicant had failed to proceed with the application in a reasonable time having regard to:
i.the failure to comply with the January, March and June directions;
ii.the failure to explain the reason for the non-compliance;
iii.the Applicant had engaged two legal firms. Each had withdrawn from the proceeding as a result of the failure of the Applicant to respond to communications or provide instructions;
iv.even thought the application for review was filed in early December 2024, in nine (9) months the Applicant had failed to file any material in support of the application.
The Tribunal was also satisfied there was no prospect the Applicant would proceed with the matter and therefore an adjournment was of limited utility in circumstances where:
i.Mr Elashwah, who was responsible for filing he application, was no longer the CEO and did not wish to proceed;
ii.there had been no response from the Applicant to the directions and listing notice sent to the purported email address of the Applicant; and
iii.there had been no response to the communication from the Respondent to the Applicant’s director.
The Tribunal dismisses the application.
Date(s) of hearing: 4 September 2025 Advocate for the Applicant: No appearance Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T Avram Solicitor for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
1
0
0