National College of Trade Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

This matter concerned applications by National College of Trade Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for a stay of two decisions made by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA): first, a decision to remove certain nationally recognised qualifications from the Applicant's scope of registration, and second, a decision to cancel the Applicant's registration as a registered training organisation. The applications were heard by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether to grant a temporary stay of ASQA's decision to remove qualifications from the Applicant's scope of registration and ASQA's decision to cancel the Applicant's registration, pending the final determination of the Applicant's review applications. In considering these applications, the Tribunal was required to assess various factors, including the prospects of success of the Applicant's review applications, the consequences for the Applicant if a stay were refused, the public interest, and the consequences for ASQA in carrying out its functions.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission* [2009] AATA 798, which outlines a non-exhaustive set of factors for determining stay applications. The Tribunal considered these factors separately for each decision. Regarding the cancellation decision, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not allow it to form a clear view on the prospects of success, and that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficient remedial action had been taken to rectify the identified non-compliances. For the remove from scope decision, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not provided crucial evidence, such as a statutory declaration from the student in question, and that the provided reports from a consultant did not sufficiently address the core issues raised by the complaints.

Ultimately, the Tribunal refused both applications for a stay. A temporary stay had been granted pending the decision on the stay applications, but this was now discharged. The Tribunal concluded that the considerations against granting a stay strongly outweighed those favouring it, and therefore, the application for a stay of the cancellation decision was refused. Consequently, there was no utility in granting a stay of the remove from scope decision, and that application was also refused.