Quality Training & Development Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

This matter concerned an application by Quality Training & Development Pty Ltd (the Applicant) for review of decisions made by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (the Respondent). The Respondent had rejected the Applicant's application to add four courses to its registration under the National Vocational Educational and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVR Act), refused to register the Applicant to deliver three courses to overseas students under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), and cancelled the Applicant's registration under the NVR Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to consider these decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had demonstrated compliance with the relevant Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and the National Code, and whether the Respondent's decisions to reject course scope amendments, refuse ESOS registration, and cancel the Applicant's RTO registration were justified. A preliminary issue arose due to the expiry of the Applicant's initial RTO registration period on 12 January 2020, which occurred after the application for review had been lodged and the Tribunal was considering the matter.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's initial RTO registration, granted on 13 January 2015, was for a five-year period, due to expire on 12 January 2020. The Respondent had raised this fact in its closing submissions, highlighting that the Tribunal was now required to consider the reviewable decisions after the Applicant's registration had expired. The Tribunal considered the exercise of its discretion under section 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which allows the Tribunal to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the decision is unlikely to be of any real utility.

Given that the Applicant's registration had expired, the Tribunal concluded that any decision it made regarding the reviewable decisions would be of no real utility. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.