Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1463
•28 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 1463
[2018] AATA 1463
28 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd (the Applicant) against the decision of the Secretary, Department of Education and Training (the Respondent) to cancel the Applicant's approval to operate a family day care service. The dispute arose from repeated instances of non-compliance with the conditions of its provider approval, including failures in governance arrangements, which the Respondent deemed to be indicative of recklessness. The appeal was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant was a suitable person to operate a child care service, considering its history of non-compliance. This involved assessing whether the breaches of conditions were sufficiently serious to warrant the cancellation of its approval and, if so, whether any alternative orders would be appropriate. The Applicant contended that the breaches were largely due to human error and that it had taken steps to rectify issues, including engaging consultants for training.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's incorporation in March 2012 and the subsequent grant of approvals. It detailed a series of non-compliance notices issued to the Applicant from April 2013 onwards, culminating in a Show Cause Notice for suspension in November 2015 and a statutory Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions in December 2015. Despite these warnings and subsequent training initiatives, the Respondent ultimately issued a notice of intention to cancel the service's approval in May 2016, which took effect on 16 May 2016. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's submissions that the breaches were not reckless and were attributable to human error, but found that the repeated nature of the non-compliance and the failures in governance arrangements demonstrated a lack of suitability to operate a child care service.
The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to cancel the Applicant's approval to operate the family day care service.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant was a suitable person to operate a child care service, considering its history of non-compliance. This involved assessing whether the breaches of conditions were sufficiently serious to warrant the cancellation of its approval and, if so, whether any alternative orders would be appropriate. The Applicant contended that the breaches were largely due to human error and that it had taken steps to rectify issues, including engaging consultants for training.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the Applicant's incorporation in March 2012 and the subsequent grant of approvals. It detailed a series of non-compliance notices issued to the Applicant from April 2013 onwards, culminating in a Show Cause Notice for suspension in November 2015 and a statutory Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions in December 2015. Despite these warnings and subsequent training initiatives, the Respondent ultimately issued a notice of intention to cancel the service's approval in May 2016, which took effect on 16 May 2016. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's submissions that the breaches were not reckless and were attributable to human error, but found that the repeated nature of the non-compliance and the failures in governance arrangements demonstrated a lack of suitability to operate a child care service.
The Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to cancel the Applicant's approval to operate the family day care service.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Employment Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Breach
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Galaxy Day Care PTY LTD and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 4675
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Cajina v The Queen
[2009] ACTCA 2
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority
[2008] HCA 31