Talented Training Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

Talented Training Pty Ltd (the Applicant) sought a stay of the Australian Skills Quality Authority's (the Respondent) decision to cancel its registration as a registered training organisation. The cancellation decision was made on 13 November 2019 and was to take effect on 18 December 2019. The Applicant filed a request for a stay on 6 December 2019, pending the final determination of its application for review, which was also filed on that date. The Tribunal heard the stay application on 17 and 18 December 2019, initially granting an interim stay. On 18 December 2019, the Tribunal ordered a continuation of the interim stay until a further hearing on 14 January 2020, imposing certain conditions on the Applicant's operations.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant a stay of the Respondent's decision to cancel the Applicant's registration, pursuant to section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider various factors, including the interests of persons affected by the review, the prospects of success of the Applicant's review application, the public interest, and the potential consequences for both the Applicant and the Respondent if a stay were granted or refused. The Tribunal was also obliged to ensure the Respondent had a reasonable opportunity to make submissions regarding the stay.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's prospects of success on review were not "fanciful" or "totally hopeless," noting that there appeared to be real questions to be determined based on the preliminary evidence. The Tribunal also considered the material consequences for the Applicant if the stay were refused, including evidence suggesting potential insolvency and that the review application could be rendered nugatory. The Tribunal acknowledged the public interest, particularly concerning safety, and stated that there was a "balance" to be struck between the Applicant's submissions and the public interest considerations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ordered that the operation of the Respondent's decision to cancel the Applicant's registration be stayed until the determination of the application for review or further order. This stay was subject to conditions, including that two named individuals, Samuel Fulcher and Joshua Fisk, were not to assess any students for the duration of the stay or until further order.