Woolgrove and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment

In *Woolgrove and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment*, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for remission of HECS-HELP debt. The applicant sought remission on the grounds of special circumstances, specifically relating to medical conditions and family events that occurred during or around the first semester of 2019. The Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment, had affirmed a decision to refuse the remission.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for remission of a HECS-HELP debt under subsection 36-21(1)(b) of the *Higher Education Support Act 2003* (Cth). This subsection requires that the applicant must have experienced "special circumstances" that were not Commonwealth Government policy to alleviate and that had a significant impact on their ability to undertake or complete their study. The Tribunal had to determine if the medical evidence and details of family circumstances provided by the applicant constituted such special circumstances.

The Tribunal reasoned that for medical evidence to be relevant to the period in question, it needed to demonstrate a change in the applicant's medical condition on or after the census date and before the end of the semester. While the applicant provided medical certificates and reports detailing issues such as otitis externa, COPD, and recurrent ear infections, much of this evidence related to events occurring after the relevant study period or did not establish a significant impact on her capacity to study during that specific semester. Furthermore, while the stillbirth of the applicant's grandchild in August 2019 was a significant personal event, it occurred after the end of the first semester of 2019 and therefore could not be considered as impacting her ability to study during that period.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the test in subsection 36-21(1)(b) of the Act. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of remission, was therefore affirmed.