Ellinor Wood and Secretary, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education

[2012] AATA 674

[2012] AATA  674

Division	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number(s)	2012/3680
Re	Ellinor Wood
APPLICANT
And	Secretary, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Senior Member J F Toohey
Date	4 October 2012
Place	Sydney

For the reasons given orally at the hearing on 4 October 2012, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the application.

.........[sgd]...............................................................

Senior Member J F Toohey

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review decision concerning payment of fees – no jurisdiction

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 25

Higher Education Support Act 2003 s 206-1

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member J F Toohey

4 October 2012

BACKGROUND

1. Ellinor Wood enrolled in a course of full–time study at the University of Notre Dame (the University) in 2012 but realised after three weeks that she had enrolled in the wrong course and took up another course at a different university.  To make a long story short, she understood from talking to people at the university that she would not be liable for fees for the period of her enrolment and that nothing was required of her in that regard.    

2. The University subsequently issued an invoice for fees totalling $2,916.00 for the first semester of 2012.  In response, Ms Wood wrote to the University explaining her position and stating why she did not believe she should have to pay the fees.

3. By letter dated 9 July 2012, the University Registrar (the Registrar) wrote to Ms Wood setting out why he considered she remained liable to pay the fees.

4. On 27 August 2012, Ms Wood asked this Tribunal to review the University’s decision.  As it appeared the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider her application, a hearing was convened on 4 October 2012 to determine whether that was so.

5. At the hearing on 4 October 2012 I gave oral reasons for my determination that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the University’s decision to raise fees. These written reasons reflect those given orally at the hearing.

   THE UNIVERSITY’S DECISION

6. The course in which Ms Wood enrolled was a full fee-paying course.  However, she was eligible for financial assistance in the form of FEE-HELP under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the HES Act).  An application for FEE-HELP had to be made by 23 March 2012 (“the census date”).  Because she did not intend continuing in the course, Ms Wood did not apply for FEE-HELP.

7. As a matter of policy, the University requires a student who does not wish to apply for FEE-HELP to pay the full amount of the fees for a course by the census date.  It also requires a student wishing to withdraw from a course to do so formally by the census date.  Failure to withdraw formally by the census date means that the full fees for the semester are incurred.  Withdrawal after the census date is only allowed in exceptional circumstances.

8. Because she understood there was nothing she was required to do in order to withdraw, Ms Wood did not formally withdraw from her course until after she received the University’s invoice for fees.  By that time, the census date had passed.

9. In his letter of 9 July 2012, the Registrar advised Ms Wood he thought she had been given adequate advice about her fee obligations.  Although not spelled out, it is clear that he did not consider her circumstances exceptional.

10. The Registrar’s letter concluded with advice that, if Ms Wood was not satisfied with his decision, she had a right to apply to this Tribunal for a further review and set out information about how to go about such application.  For the reasons set out below, that advice was not correct.    

    HAS THE TRIBUNAL JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY’S DECISION?

11. The Tribunal has no general power to review decisions; it may only review those decisions in relation to which it is given jurisdiction. 

12. Section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (AAT Act) provides that an enactment may provide that applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment or for the review of decisions made in the exercise of the powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

13. The Tribunal has power to review any decision in respect of which application is made to it under any enactment: s 25(4).

14. Section 206-1 of the HES Act sets out in a table the reviewable decisions under that Act.  None of them is a decision of the kind made by the University in Ms Wood’s case. 

15. I appreciate that Ms Wood feels aggrieved but, as there is no decision made under an enactment for the purposes of s 25 of the AAT Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the University’s decision to recover fees from her.

I certify that the preceding 15 (fifteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey.

.......[sgd].................................................................

Associate
Dated 4 October 2012

Date(s) of hearing	4 October 2012
Applicant	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent	Mr S Maundrell, Legal Branch, Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education