Rowley and Decision Maker

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned an application by a university student seeking review of a decision made by Charles Sturt University (CSU). CSU had previously decided to exclude the applicant from enrolment for five years under its Student Misconduct Rule 2020, following an appeal by the applicant which was dismissed. The applicant sought to appeal CSU's appeal decision to the AAT.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review CSU's decision. This question arose after CSU mistakenly informed the applicant that the AAT was an available avenue for appeal, when in fact the correct tribunal was the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The AAT was required to determine if any "enactment" as defined by section 3 of the AAT Act provided for review of decisions made under CSU's Student Misconduct Rule 2020, pursuant to section 25 of the AAT Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that for it to have jurisdiction, there must be an enactment that confers a power of review upon the AAT. The Student Misconduct Rule 2020 was made under the Vice-Chancellor's power pursuant to section 109 of the Charles Sturt University By-law 2005 (NSW). However, neither the By-law nor the Rule contained any provision that granted the AAT jurisdiction to review decisions made under them. The AAT noted that the appeal clause in the letter from CSU was incorrect and that the correct avenue for appeal was NCAT.

Consequently, the AAT found that it lacked jurisdiction to review CSU's decision. The application was dismissed under section 42A of the AAT Act.