Noureddin and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

Noureddin and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 4599 (9 December 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/4484
Re:Amal Noureddin
APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Senior Member J Rau SC
Date:9 December 2021
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review of the Applicant not being a full-time student in the relevant period and not being qualified to receive Austudy, and owing a debt of Austudy payable to the Agency is affirmed.
The decision under review with respect to the Agency recovering the full amount of debt from the Applicant is set aside and varied so that the debt is written-off until such time as the Applicant returns to Australia.
.........................[Sgnd]........................
Senior Member J Rau SC

Catchwords
SOCIAL SECURITY – Austudy – Overpayment of Austudy – Debt due to Commonwealth – Whether Applicant was a full-time student – Recovery of debt – Whether there should be a write-off of the debt – Deferral of payment appropriate – Decision under review of Applicant not being a full-time student and owing a debt affirmed – Decision under review of Respondent recovering the debt set aside and varied
Legislation
Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)
Cases
Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 2007 FCA 25
Dranichnikov v Centrelink 2003 FCAFC 133
Jenkins and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2020] AATA 28
VLYK; Secretary, Department of Social Services and (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 2774
Secondary Materials
Social Security Guide
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J Rau SC
9 December 2021
Introduction

The decision under review was made by the Social Services and Child Support division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT1) on 24 June 2020. In that decision, the AAT1:
(a)affirmed Services Australia’s (the Agency) decision that Mrs Amal Noureddin (the Applicant) was not a full-time student for a period between 29 July 2017 and 2 August 2019 (the relevant period), and was therefore not qualified to receive Austudy;
(b)affirmed the Agency’s decision to raise debt against the Applicant of Austudy paid to the Applicant to the amount of $23,844.27 in respect of the relevant period (the debt); and
(c)affirmed the Agency’s decision to recover the full amount of debt.
The issues to be determined in this matter are as follows:
(a)was the Applicant overpaid $23,844.27 in Austudy in respect of the relevant period?;
(b)does the Applicant owe a debt to the Commonwealth?; and
(c)if the answer to paragraph (2)(b) above is yes, should it be recovered?
Background
On 19 July 2017, the Applicant submitted a claim for Austudy. In her claim she indicated that she intended to study for a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care through the Open Education Training Network on a full-time basis. The course was stated to have commenced on 1 June 2017 and was anticipated to be completed by 31 May 2019. Her application for Austudy, received by the Agency on 29 July 2017, states inter alia “study hours per week…47”[1]. This rather puzzling entry was apparently not queried. It does not correspond with the TAFE NSW enrolment summary[2] or the Applicant’s assessment outcome documentation.[3] It is, however, close to her oral evidence to the Tribunal on the topic of how many hours she spent studying each week (i.e. 30-40 hours home study and 10 hours online).
[1] Exhibit 2, T4, p 47.
[2] Ibid, T5, p 52.
[3] Ibid, T6, pp 54-57.
By letter dated 3 August 2017, the Applicant was advised that she would be paid Austudy from 29 July 2017. This correspondence included the following passages:
“Your Austudy is based on you studying full-time at OPEN TRAINING AND EDUCATION NETWORK (OTEN) – TAFE. Tertiary Group D Course with the course ending on 31 May 2019. If your study load changes or if you cease to study you should let us know within 14 days.
You can earn up to $437.00 a fortnight before your income affects your payments because you are now studying or training full-time. If you earn less, you can accumulate up to $10,900.00 in an Income Bank.”[4]
[4] Ibid, T12, p 112.
By correspondence dated 31 December 2017 the Applicant was advised:
“Your Austudy has been stopped from 31 December 2017 because you are not in Australia. If your payment is not automatically restored when you return to Australia, please contact us.”[5]
[5] Ibid, p 115.
The Applicant returned to Australia on 11 March 2018.[6]
[6] Ibid, T15, p 336.
By letter dated 12 March 2018, the Applicant was advised as follows:
“Your Austudy is based on you studying full-time at TAFE DIGITAL, Tertiary Group D Course with the course ending on the 31 May 2019. If your study load changes or if you cease study you should let us know within 14 days.”[7]
[7] Ibid, T13, p 210.
Similar correspondence was forwarded to the Applicant dated 30 May 2018[8], 28 June 2018[9], 6 March 2019[10], 14 May 2019[11], and 26 July 2019.[12]
[8] Ibid, p 221.
[9] Ibid, T12, p 113.
[10] Ibid, p 146.
[11] Ibid, p 163.
[12] Ibid, p 172.
The Applicant confirmed that she was engaged in the study as set out above by completing an online review on 6 May 2018.[13]
[13] Ibid, T6, p 54.
By correspondence dated 26 December 2018 the Applicant was advised in the following terms:
“Your Austudy has been stopped from 26 December 2018 because you are not in Australia. If your payment is not automatically restored when you return to Australia, please contact us.”[14]
[14] Ibid, T12, p 140.
Records indicate that the Applicant returned to Australia on 3 March 2019 and that her payments were restored as from that date. This record also indicates “customer has been advised/reminded of the general notification provisions”.[15]
[15] Ibid, T14, p 288.
By letter dated 6 May 2019 the Applicant was advised that her payment would stop on 31 May 2019 as this was recorded as her last day of study.[16]
[16] Ibid, T12, p 160.
Records indicate that the Applicant’s nominee made a telephone call on 11 July 2019 stating that the course did not finish until 2 August 2019. Payments were accordingly extended.[17]
[17] Ibid, T14, p 292.
By letter dated 29 July 2019, the Applicant was asked to confirm that the details regarding her study were correct.[18]
[18] Ibid, T12, p 175.
By letter dated 5 August 2019, the Applicant was advised that her Austudy had been cancelled “from 3 August 2019 because you are not studying full-time or you have ceased studying.”[19]
[19] Ibid, p 177.
Records from TAFE NSW generated on 15 August 2019, are reflective of the notional time involved in the Applicant’s study.[20]
[20] Ibid, T7, pp 55-57.
See “Annexure A” for further explanation as to the notional time involved in the Applicant’s study.
By letter dated 15 August 2019 entitled “Cancellation of your New Start allowance”, the Applicant was advised as follows:
“Your Austudy has been cancelled from 15 July 2017 because you are not studying full-time or you have ceased studying.”
By letter dated 25 September 2019, the Applicant was advised in the following terms:
“We have reassessed your Austudy. You were paid more than you were entitled to and you need to pay the money back.
Why you owe money
From 29 JUL 2017 your study workload was not sufficient to qualify for Austudy. Consequently you have been overpaid $23844.27 for the period 29 JUL 2017 to 02 AUG 2019. We are, therefore, required to recover this amount.
……
You need to pay the amount due using one of the payment methods listed on the payment slip. If you cannot pay by 24 OCT 2019, please call… to discuss your payment options.”[21]
[21] Ibid, T12, p 183.
On 26 September 2019, the Applicant’s nominee is recorded as having complained that:
“…DHS took “so long” to make this assessment because if cus was and is making part time progress then DHS “should have told her sooner” and cus would have transferred back to NSA.”[22]
[22] Ibid, T14, p 298.
Records also indicate that the Applicant’s representative requested a review of the decision. It states that the Applicant “disagrees with the decision based on financial hardship”[23].
[23] Ibid, p 299.
By letter dated 12 December 2019, the Applicant was advised that the decision to seek repayment of the debt had been reviewed and that the decision to seek repayment stood.[24]
[24] Ibid, T9, p 77.
On 12 January 2020, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the decision of 12 December 2019. On 1 June 2020, the AAT1 affirmed the decision under review.[25]
[25] Ibid, T2, p 6.
On 24 July 2020, the Applicant sought review of the AAT1 decision. This is the matter currently before the Tribunal.
The Applicant has been overseas, in Jordan, since 2 March 2020 and it is not clear when she will be able to return to Australia having regard to the current travel restrictions associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. No repayments have been made.
The Applicant’s statement to the Tribunal dated 20 October 2021 relevantly states as follows:
“During the stated duration of the course, I was genuinely studying and was making every single effort to complete the course. As far as I was aware, I was doing the right thing and I was doing full-time studies. The assuring factor for me was that I did not receive any notifications from Centrelink about me not being a full-time student. All my kids received university education and were receiving Austudy payments. The moment one dropped a unit and was no longer a full-time student, they would receive a notification from Centrelink regarding the suspension of their Austudy payment due to them no longer being a full-time student.
……
This to me sounds like I should have been told by Centrelink, prior to the end date of my course, that I was not at a full-time load but was not due to an error on Centrelink’s behalf.
Also, prior to me receiving Austudy payments, I was receiving Newstart allowance payment. At no point for the duration of me receiving the payments did I have any payment suspended due to me not meeting my obligations that made me eligible to receive regular Newstart allowance payments.
……
Should I have been notified earlier in the course that my load was not a full-time load, I would have transferred my claim from Austudy back to Newstart allowance for the duration of the course as I genuinely wanted to complete the diploma to pursue my teaching career.
……
…due to being away from home and being stuck in Jordan for 20 months and not receiving any assistance from the Australian government, whether financially or to help returning to Australia.
I currently do not have the financial capacity and do not foresee myself in the capacity to repay the amount requested by Centrelink. COVID-19 has taken my financial situation from bad to the worst. I have been stuck in Jordan for 20 months and have not been receiving any means of income. My current living condition in Jordan is nowhere near tolerable. I am currently living with my brother and his family of four in their 3-bedroom rental house. My everyday expenses are currently possible from money that I have been borrowing from my sons. My brother’s financial situation has been ruined due to losing his job because of COVID-19. This has placed an extra burden on me and added further expenses, that I am not managing, in contributing towards his rent and the cost to run the house, bills, groceries, etc. Cost of living in Jordan is very high, and a for a person like me with no
regular income to have more responsibilities placed on my back has been causing severe stress and it is making me mentally unstable.
The money that I have been borrowing from my sons, I must repay back, as they do not have the financial capacity to keep on lending me money and not receiving the money back. Thinking about how and where I am going to get the money to start paying them back has been causing me further stresses and many sleepless nights. All those factors have been deeply affecting my mental health and have been driving me mentally insane.
Financial burdens extend to when I finally get the opportunity to return to Australia. Whilst I am not home and still stuck in Jordan, the financial burdens will only get heavier, and my mental health will only get worst. To maximise my chances to return home, I would have to book either a First-class ticker or a business class ticket, both of which I cannot afford and do not have the audacity to ask for money from any of my kids. As I have previously stated, none of my sons have the financial capacity to keep on lending money.
Further to this, by me not having the financial capacity and not being in the country, I am feeling disadvantaged due to not being able to seek legal advice from a lawyer to obtain legal assistance regarding this matter.”[26]
[26] Exhibit 3.
The Applicant, who is, as previously stated, still in Jordan, gave evidence through an interpreter, by telephone. She maintained that she had been engaged in “full-time study’ during the relevant period. She stated that she did not complete some study modules because they required a placement, which she had struggled to obtain. She said that she was studying at home for between 30 and 40 hours per week. She was also doing about 10 hours per week online. These numbers bear no relationship whatsoever to the 143 hours recorded in the TAFE records.[27]
[27] Exhibit 2, T5 & T6, pp 52-57.
The Applicant gave evidence that she has no income other than the money that her children send to support her in Jordan. She presently has no plans to apply for any benefits when she returns. I note that she was a Newstart recipient from 3 April 2012 until she began to receive Austudy. The rates are similar, but the evidence suggests that Newstart paid slightly more during the relevant period. There is now no way of knowing whether the Applicant could have continued to receive Newstart allowance throughout the relevant period if she was not on Austudy. To form a view on that would require the Tribunal to engage in speculation regarding, for example, whether she would have satisfied the “activity test” during the relevant period.
Was the Applicant a full-time student qualified for Austudy?
There is no dispute about the accuracy of the NSW TAFE documentation. Exactly what is to be made of this material and to whom it was available in real time, however, is perhaps another matter. Based on this documentation it appears that during the 85.5 weeks that the Applicant was in Australia and being paid Austudy, she completed 143 hours of study. This equates to approximately 1.67 hours per week. The “total curriculum hours of enrolled subjects” is stated by the provider (Open Training and Education Network (“OTEN”) TAFE), to be 1480 hours.[28] These hours were to be completed between 1 June 2017 and 31 May, 2019, a period of two years. If these 1480 hours were completed during the 85.5 weeks that the Applicant was in Australia and being paid Austudy, it equates to approximately 17.3 hours per week.[29]
[28] Exhibit 2, T7, p 55.
[29] Exhibit 2, T6 & T7, pp 54-57.
This raises the question of how the 1480 hours of required study and the 143 hours of actual study were calculated. It also raises the question of determining exactly what would constitute full-time study in this case.
The “normal amount of full-time study” in respect of a course is determined by section 569E of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act):
(1)For the purposes of this Subdivision, the normal amount of full-time study in respect of a course is:
(a) if:
(i) the course is a course of study within the meaning of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 ; and
(ii) there are Commonwealth supported students (within the meaning of that Act) enrolled in the course;
the full-time student load for the course; or
(b) if the course is not such a course and the institution defines an amount of full-time study that a full-time student should typically undertake in respect of the course--the amount so defined; or
(c) otherwise--an amount of full-time study equivalent to the average amount of full-time study that a person would have to undertake for the duration of the course in order to complete the course in the minimum amount of time needed to complete it.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the normal amount of full-time study in respect of a course is an average, taken over the duration of the period for which the person in question is enrolled in the course, of 20 contact hours per week.
The Respondent contends that subsection 569E(1)(c) is relevant in this case. Applying this section to the facts in this case, the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course is 2 years or 104 weeks. (Noting of course that the Applicant was not in the country for some of that time). If the full 1480 hours of study were averaged over the time of 104 weeks, the weekly average is 14.23 hours per week. This is the number of hours per week that constitute “full-time study” under that subsection. Subsection 569C(2) is expressed in terms of “without limiting subsection (1)” and so, the default position of 20 contact hours per week is not applicable. The Respondent says that the appropriate number is 16 hours per week. As will be seen below, it makes no practical difference in this case which of these calculations are correct.
Section 569C provides that that a person remains a “full-time student” so long as the “person is undertaking at least three quarters of the normal amount of full-time study in respect of the course for that period.” Assuming in the Applicant’s favour that 14.23 hours is the “full-time” study load, three quarters of that equals 10.67. So, even if these calculations are correct, (and they may well not be), the Applicant still has to have completed at least 10.67 hours of study per week to maintain her status as a full-time student.
This all begs the question as to what constitutes “study” for these purposes.
Following the hearing on 25 October 2021, I issued a direction dated 25 October 2021 requiring the Respondent to provide further submissions addressing:
“1. how the Respondent says the Tribunal should interpret the evidence from TAFE NSW, and what facts it should find based on the evidence (inclusive of any additional statement or materials from TAFE NSW);
2. how the Tribunal should apply the “Guidelines”, and any other relevant statutory provisions, to the facts so found (inclusive of a copy of the abovementioned Guidelines);
3. how the Respondent says that paragraphs 1 and 2 above lead to a finding that the Applicant was not engaged in “full-time study” during the relevant periods; and
4. the Respondent’s suggested form of words for any order regarding a “write-off” under section 1236 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth).”
I issued a further direction dated 26 October 2021 requesting the Respondent provide further submissions regarding:
“1. the proper application of section 569H of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) to this matter, in particular:
a. was the Applicant entitled to receive additional time, if so, how much, to complete their course (section 569H(3) of the Act)?; and if so,
b. was the Applicant advised that the proper application of section 569H of the Act would have given her the opportunity to be compliant?;
c. if not, why not?; and
d. might that failure constitute an error for the purposes of section 1237A of the Act?”
In accordance with the above directions the Respondent obtained additional material from TAFE NSW.
Having considered this additional material, I have come to the following view. Students enrolled in the Applicant’s course have a two-year enrolment period. All TAFE digital courses are online, and a student works in their own time. If a student wishes to complete the course to meet a full-time study requirement for Centrelink purposes, they must complete a notional 16 unit hours per week and complete the course in two years.
The course is divided into assessment units. A student’s participation rate is determined by the rate at which they submit assessments. In other words, the actual time spent by the Applicant in study is not the relevant measure for assessment of her participation. Each assessment unit is designated as requiring a certain number of hours to be completed. Theoretically, a student could successfully complete an assessment unit in much less than the allocated time. In these circumstances, they would still be deemed to have completed that assessment unit and to have completed the designated hours allocated to that assessment unit.

Given the circumstances of being enrolled in an online TAFE course of this type, it is probably distracting to be focused on the terminology “full-time study”. In lay terms, this would focus on the time commitment made by student, rather than the product or outcome of that commitment. In this instance, it is probably more helpful to examine this issue by reference to asking this question, “did the Applicant successfully complete the required assessment units (or at least 75% of them) during the two-year period of her enrolment?”
Asking this question of the Applicant’s circumstances, produces the following answer. Full-time study, in the Applicant’s case, was calculated by reference to the notional time required to complete the required assessment units within two years. The notional total number of hours is calculated by adding the notional hours required of each of the assessment units. This produces an aggregate of 1480 hours. When calculated by reference to completed assessment units in this manner, the Applicant only completed three hours during the period 30 May 2017 to 7 August 2017 and 141 hours during the period 22 August 2017 to 31 August 2019.
Whatever the Applicant was doing by way of study, the method of calculation explained above, produces a result in which the Applicant is deemed to have completed only 144 hours out of a total of the 1480 hours required to complete the course. In crude terms, this is less than 10% of a full-time study load.
The Applicant was not a "Concessional study load student” under section 569D.
Regard must also be had to section 569H:
“Progress rules – tertiary students
Full-time students
(1) A person who is a full-time student in respect of a tertiary course satisfies the progress rules if:
(a) in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course – on the day on which the person enrolled in the course; or
(b) in the case of a person who is not yet enrolled in the course but intends to enrol in the course – on the day on which enrolments in the course are next accepted;
the time already spent by the student on the course, or on one or more other tertiary courses at the same level as that course, does not exceed the allowable study time for that course.
Note: For allowable study time for a course see subsection (3).
Concessional study-load students
(2) A person who is a concessional study-load student in respect of a tertiary course satisfies the progress rules if:
(a) in the case of a person who is enrolled in the course – on the day on which the person enrolled in the course; or
(b) in the case of a person who is not yet enrolled in the course but intends to enrol in the course – on the day on which enrolments in the course are next accepted;
the time already spent by the person on the course, or on one or more other tertiary courses at the same level as that course, does not exceed the allowable study time for the course.
Note: For allowable study time for a course see subsections (3) and (4).
Allowable study time – full-time students and 66% concessional study-load students
(3) The allowable study time for a course undertaken by a full-time student or a 66% concessional study-load student is:
(a) if the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student is one year or less – that minimum amount of time; or
(b) if the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student is more than 1 year and:
(i) the student is enrolled, or intends to enrol, in a year-long subject; or
(ii) the student’s further progress in the course depends on passing a whole year’s work in the course;
the minimum amount of time plus 1 year; or
(c) in any other case – the minimum amount of time needed to complete the course as a full-time student plus half an academic year
………
(8) There are 5 levels of tertiary courses: levels M, A, B, C and D.
………
Level D courses
(12) The following are Level D courses:
(a) a TAFE course at a higher education institution;
(b) a TAFE course or a course provided by a VET provider, unless the course is in Level M, A, B or C.
Meaning of tertiary course
(13) For the purposes of this section, a course is a tertiary course if it is a course determined, under section 5D of the Student Assistance Act 1973, to be a tertiary course for the purposes of that Act.”
Arguably, according to section 569 H, the Applicant could have been given an additional six months after 31 May 2019 (i.e. 30 November 2019) to complete her course of study. As it was, her payments of Austudy were terminated by letter dated 15 August 2019. In this case, I do not believe that this is of any practical consequence. The Applicant could not have made up the deficit in assessment units between 15 August and 30 November. She had no placements arranged. She has not since completed any assessment units. In fact, if her payments had been terminated later, her overpayment issue would have been aggravated.
The Applicant was not, therefore, according to the method of calculation required, a full-time student during any of the period during which she received Austudy. The mere fact of her being enrolled in a full-time course, does not change the fact that she did not complete a substantial proportion of the work.
Was the Applicant overpaid?
The Applicant was paid $23,844.27 and in Austudy. She was not entitled to any of this payment. This amount is therefore a debt payable to the Commonwealth pursuant to section 1223 of the Act.
Would the Applicant have been in receipt of Newstart payments had she not been paid Austudy?
This issue was raised by the Applicant in Exhibit 3 and elsewhere. The Applicant is saying, in effect, if I was not a full-time student, eligible to receive Austudy, then the Government would have been paying me anyway through Newstart. She is seeking a set-off of notional Newstart payments against her debt.
For the reasons set out above, this argument cannot be sustained.[30]
[30] Leszkay Jenkins and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2020] AATA 28.
Should the Applicant repay the debt?
This is the only substantial question in this matter.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant has any relevant assets or income. She is stranded in Jordan, living on the charity of her children. The practicality and the utility of making any effort to recover the debt from the Applicant at the moment is close to zero.[31]
[31] Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (the ‘Act’), s 1236(1) & 1(A).
The Respondent, quite properly in my view, effectively conceded this point. The Respondent invited the Tribunal to “write-off” the debt for a period of 6 months, in the event of the Tribunal finding that a debt was owed.
Recovery of debts to the Commonwealth may be waived[32] or written off[33] under the Act in certain circumstances. There is however a strong public policy reason for exceptions to the recovery of debts due to the Commonwealth to be granted infrequently.[34]
[32] Sections 1237A and 1237AAD of the Act.
[33] Section 1236 of the Act.
[34] Sections 1237-1237AAE of the Act.
Recovery of a debt may be waived if it was caused by an agency administrative error and the overpayment was received in good faith. In my view, it was the Applicant’s responsibility to be aware of her study arrangements and to keep Centrelink advised. It was not their responsibility to proactively investigate her circumstances and to advise her of a change in her entitlements.[35] The Applicant was aware that she had not completed the required placement work to complete her assessments. Equally, having regard to in particular the Full Court of the Federal Court decision in Dranichnikov v Centrelink[36], there are no special circumstances in this case.[37] I do not consider there to be any grounds for a waiver in this instance.
[35] Brian Murphy v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2010) AATA 115, Biddlecombe v Secretary of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2010) AATA 451 & Phillips v Secretary, Dept of Social Services (2021) AATA 3560.
[36] [2003] FCAFC 133.
[37] See also, Angelakos v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 2007 FCA 25.
In the context of this legislation, a “write-off” is a deferral of payment. A deferral of payment may be appropriate where a debtor has no capacity to repay the debt. As has already been mentioned, the Applicant is overseas, and it is unclear when she will be able to return. There is no evidence that she is in receipt of any income from any source including Centrelink. There is no evidence of the Applicant having any other independent capacity to pay at the present time. The practicalities of recovering from the Applicant given her current temporary domicile in Jordan is also problematic. This is quite properly conceded by the Respondent.
In my view, the Applicant’s debt should be written-off until such time as she returns to Australia, at which time her capacity to pay can be assessed and such repayment arrangements as may be reasonable can be made.
Decision
The decision under review is if affirmed as follows:
(i)the Applicant was not a full-time student in the relevant period, and was not qualified to receive Austudy; and
(ii)the Applicant has a debt of Austudy payable to the Agency to the amount of $23,844.27.
The decision under review with respect to the Agency’s decision to recover the full amount of debt from the Applicant is set aside and varied so that the debt is written-off until such time as the Applicant returns to Australia.

I certify that the preceding fifty-eight (58) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J Rau SC.

............................[Sgnd]................................
Legal Administrative Assistant
Dated: 9 December 2021

Date of hearing: 25 October 2021

Advocate for the Applicant:

Baha’a Hijazi

Advocate for the Respondent:
Jasmine Forsyth

Mills Oakley Lawyers

Annexure A

[2021] AATA 4599

9 December 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Appeal

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Remedies

Statutory Construction