Peters and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment
Case
•
[2021] AATA 3800
•18 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Peters and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] AATA 3800
[2021] AATA 3800
18 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Peters for remission of his HECS-HELP debt. Mr. Peters sought remission on the basis of alleged special circumstances, specifically chronic migraine and vestibular migraine, which he claimed made it impracticable for him to complete his units of study after the census dates for those units. The Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment was the respondent.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the circumstances relied upon by Mr. Peters constituted "special circumstances" for the purposes of section 36-20 of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether these circumstances were beyond Mr. Peters' control, whether their full impact occurred after the census dates, and whether they made it impracticable for him to complete the requirements of the units of study. The Tribunal also considered whether the requirement to apply for remission before the end of the application period could be waived.
The Tribunal found that the "impracticability" criterion under section 36-20 of the Act was not satisfied in relation to any of the relevant study periods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that section 36-20 did not apply to Mr. Peters for the units of study in question. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the circumstances relied upon by Mr. Peters constituted "special circumstances" for the purposes of section 36-20 of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether these circumstances were beyond Mr. Peters' control, whether their full impact occurred after the census dates, and whether they made it impracticable for him to complete the requirements of the units of study. The Tribunal also considered whether the requirement to apply for remission before the end of the application period could be waived.
The Tribunal found that the "impracticability" criterion under section 36-20 of the Act was not satisfied in relation to any of the relevant study periods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that section 36-20 did not apply to Mr. Peters for the units of study in question. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Employment Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
HHJK and Secretary, Department of Education [2023] AATA 1775
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Bell and Secretary, Department of Education
[2024] AATA 3007
Vandenberk and Secretary, Department of Education
[2024] AATA 1668
HHJK and Secretary, Department of Education
[2023] AATA 1775
Cases Cited
18
Statutory Material Cited
0
Montenegro v Secretary, Department of Education
[2020] FCAFC 210
Apted and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)
[2020] AATA 5139
Commissioner of Taxation v Apted
[2021] FCAFC 45