Nacol and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Ms Nacol (the applicant) seeking a re-credit of her FEE-HELP debt, which amounted to $12,000. The dispute arose from the applicant's claim that she experienced physical illness, specifically urticaria, which she argued constituted "special circumstances" that prevented her from meeting the requirements of her units of study. The applicant sought to have her FEE-HELP debt remitted on this basis.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's physical illness constituted "special circumstances" as defined by the relevant legislation. This involved assessing whether her circumstances were beyond her control, whether their full impact occurred on or after the census date for her units, and whether these circumstances made it impracticable for her to meet the unit requirements. The core of the legal issue was whether the applicant's actions, or inactions, in response to her illness were reasonable and sufficient to warrant the re-credit of her debt.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it accepted the applicant's health condition was debilitating, it was not so severe as to render her completely incapable of action. The Tribunal noted two key actions the applicant could have taken: completing and returning a special consideration form provided by the university, and withdrawing from her courses before the census date. Evidence indicated the applicant was aware of the deferred examination option and had received the special consideration form, which her doctor had completed. Despite her illness, she engaged in email correspondence and sought support from friends. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as *Brown*, which established that for an action to be considered "not possible," a very serious constraint on a person's ability to act would be required. The applicant had a clear deadline for submitting the special consideration form and sufficient time to do so. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the requirements for special circumstances under section 104-30(1)(a) and (c) of the relevant Act.

The decision under review was affirmed, meaning the applicant's FEE-HELP debt was not re-credited. The Tribunal certified that the preceding paragraphs accurately reflected the reasons for its decision.