XLLK and Secretary, Department of Education - [2025] ARTA 1300

XLLK and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1300 (12 August 2025)
Applicant/s:  XLLK
Respondent:  Secretary, Department of Education
Tribunal Number:                2024/5464

Tribunal:General Member R. Cameron
Place:Melbourne
Date:12 August 2025

Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

................................SGD........................................
General Member R. Cameron
Catchwords
HIGHER EDUCATION-HECS-HELP debt-re-credit of SLE amount within 12-month application period-applicant enrolled in units of study for Trimesters 1 and 2 of 2010 academic year-no withdrawal from units or an application for re-credit-should the application period be waived-reviewable decision affirmed
Legislation
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth)
Cases
Brown and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 518
Forer and Secretary, Department of Education [2023] AATA 1271
Thomson and Secretary, Department of Education Skills and Employment [2020] AATA 4672
TYJD and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] AATA 2184
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

The applicant seeks a review of a decision made on 23 July 2024 by an Internal Reviewer of Deakin University which confirmed a previous decision not to re-credit his HECS-HELP balance as assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (“the HES Act”) (“the reviewable decision”).[1]
[1] JTB, 15.
THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
There was both oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal of the hearing of this application.
The applicant, who was self-represented, gave oral evidence and was searchingly cross examined.
Ms Pritchard, the Manager of Student Finance at Deakin University, also gave oral evidence.[2] She was cross examined by the applicant.
[2] She also made a witness statement JTB, 448.
By way of documentary evidence there received in evidence an agreed Joint Tender Book (“JTB”).
THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL
The following issues arise for determination by the Tribunal in this application:
(a)Did the applicant, under s 79-1 (1) (d) of the HES Act apply in writing for re-crediting of the “Student Learning Entitlement” (“SLE”) in respect of the of the relevant units of study?
(b)Was, under s 79-1 (1) (e) (i) of the HES Act, the application for re-crediting of the SLE made before the end of the application period prescribed under s 79-10? Or
(c)If not, whether, under s 79-1 (1) (e) (ii) of the HES Act, the applicable Act the application period requirement can be waived on the grounds that it was not possible for the application to have been made by the applicant before the end of that period?
(d)If yes to issue (a) and either (b) or (c) above, whether, under s 79 (1) (c) of the HES Act the Tribunal is satisfied that “special circumstances” apply to the applicant?
BACKGROUND
It is not unreasonable to say that this matter has a rather unusual factual background and history.
The trigger to this application arose on 6 June 2024. The applicant by an email using an online portal with Deakin University lodged a “Submission number: 2787655”.[3] That submission was entitled “New request to waive 12-month application time limit.” The application was seeking to re-credit his SLE amounts with respect to the Units. In the section of that email or portal which contains “Request details”, several matters were entered by the applicant. These details were as follows:
[3] JTB, 214.
(a)The “Study period”, was the year “2010” being Trimesters 1 & 2;
(b)The “Course” was “Commerce”;
(c)Applicable Units for Trimester 1 were identified as follows:
(i)Unit 1: MAF 356;
(ii)Unit 2: MAF 202;
(iii)Unit 3: MAE 202; and
(iv)Unit 4: MAA 261.
(d)Applicable Units for Trimester 2 were identified as follows:
(i)Unit 1: MAF203 Business Finance;
(ii)Unit 2: MAF 201 Competition and Industry; and
(iii)Unit 3: MAA 262 Management Accounting.[4]
(e)In the section entitled “Reason for not submitting your application”, “Other”, the applicant stated:
I did not enrol in these subjects. The system states I enrolled on September 30, 2009 which is not true. It is some sort of glitch in the records that happens to show on exactly 3/4 through the year. For some reason I’m not being believed so I am requesting the decision to be reviewed. I didn’t attend a single day in 2010 as I was not aware I was enrolled. I was not aware I had been incorrectly charged for Semester 1 and 2 of 2010 until this year when I reached the income threshold to start paying my HELP debt and enquired. I am urging the University to check my attendance record and review their decision.
[4] The above-named applicable units for Trimester 1 and Trimester 2 of 2010 are hereinafter referred to as "the relevant units".
It is important at this stage of these reasons to record that the applicant has consistently maintained that he had never enrolled in the relevant subjects in the year 2010. In support of this contention, apart from his own direct oral evidence on the topic, he relies on several other facts or circumstances to corroborate this contention and his evidence in support of it. He says that he was not issued with any documentation establishing or raising any liability for the relevant subjects.
Additionally, he contends that no correspondence, evidence of him sitting examinations, submitting assignments and the like, for academic assessment or other corroborative documentary evidence of a contemporaneous nature was produced at the time of, and subsequent to, the enrolment in these subjects as recorded in Deakin University’s records as and from the year 2010. Therefore, it was not possible for him to make the relevant application before the end of the applicable application period because he did not become aware that he had enrolled in the relevant subjects in the year 2010 until he subsequently found out in 2024 as noted previously.
It should be observed however, that with respect to correspondence concerning unsatisfactory progress on the part of the applicant there were 3 letters subsequently produced by Deakin University about which more will be said later. They were referred to rather extensively during the cross-examination of the applicant and the evidence given by Ms Pritchard.
Prior to him lodging the request to waive the 12-month application time limit in June 2024, the applicant in May 2024 lodged a Student Complaint form with Deakin University, Office of the Dean of Students concerning the matter.[5] Deakin University says it received the complaint from the applicant on 6 May 2024. The complaint was investigated by a Senior Officer, Student Complaints from that office. Following the investigation, the Senior Officer on 15 May 2024 sent the applicant a letter advising him of the outcome of his complaint. That letter was in evidence before the Tribunal.[6] The contents of the letter speak for itself. However, it is appropriate to briefly summarise certain aspects of it for the purposes of these reasons.
[5] JTB, 208.
[6] JTB, 210.
The letter of 15 May 2024 revealed that a review had been undertaken of the University record keeping system. It is clearly a computer-based system. That review revealed that the applicant had completed enrolment on 30 September 2009 in units MAF 356, MAF 202, MAE 202, and MAA 261 FOR Trimester 1 2010, and MAF 203, MAE 201 and MAA 262 for Trimester 2 2010. The enrolment was completed via an online portal known as “StudentConnect”. As Ms Pritchard explained in her evidence, Deakin University uses the Callista Student Management System which records, amongst other things, students’ enrolment in units of study. She also outlined that the Callista Student Management System is the central portal that manages all aspects of a student’s time at Deakin University. Each student has a file or database that is unique to them. In addition to processing enrolments and variations to enrolments, it updates the student’s personal details when needed, it generates invoices to students, and where appropriate, details of Commonwealth payments or obligations. An examination of the record revealed that the applicant logged into that portal on 30 September 2009 and accessed the enrolments page to process such enrolment.
The StudentConnect “audit forms” or screenshots extracted or downloaded from the Callista Student Management System in evidence before the Tribunal, which apparently cannot be edited or altered after the event, record that the applicant enrolled in the relevant units at 1:44 PM on that day.[7] To gain access to the portal concerned it is necessary to use a unique username or “identifier” (on the screenshots it is described as “Person ID”, it is a number and the applicant’s Person ID number was 900163413) and password. As is commonplace these days in the Internet era, the “audit forms” or screenshots are in the “Windows” format with particular menus or boxes that require completion, or as sometimes described by those in the more sophisticated computer world, “populated” by the user.[8] once a task has been completed the user then clicks on an icon to confirm the transaction concerned. One of the features of this format is that the unique identifier, or “Person ID” as it is described, is the very first entry recorded in each window on the left-hand side. This is also a common feature of relational databases that are frequently used by a variety of businesses and other organisations to accurately record, store, analyse, manage and mine the data stored in it.[9]
[7] JTB, 88.
[8] Copies of the "audit" form created by reason of the login on 30 September 2009 at 1:44 PM JTB, 88. It should also be mentioned that in evidence were the "audit forms” completed by the applicant when he enrolled to study a Bachelor of Commerce with a Commonwealth supported place and a HECS-HELP loan. (JTB, 81).
[9] Common examples of such relational databases are the Oracle Database and Microsoft Access. Ms Pritchard in her evidence explained that the database used by Deakin University was the Oracle system.
The applicant steadfastly denies that he enrolled in the relevant subjects on 30 September 2009 using StudentConnect. He emphasises that Deakin University has not provided specific evidence which might verify whether or not he did so. He identifies evidence such as an IP address log, MAC ID or some kind of electronic “audit trail” that would more accurately conclude that he in fact enrolled in the relevant subjects or units as alleged.
Additionally, on the question of corroborative evidence relied upon by Deakin University being screenshots of the “audit forms” or completed windows, he contends that they do not show any system logs or audit trails linking the action concerned (namely the enrolment in the relevant subjects) to his specific login credentials or device location. Once again, he refers to such indicators as the IP address of the device used to login when the enrolment was affected, a MAC ID or for that matter specific login details.
The letter of 15 May 2024 further stated that the Office of Dean of Students enquiries were unable to locate any record of the applicant requesting to discontinue or withdraw from his enrolment. The investigation was otherwise unable to identify any university error. Therefore, there was nothing to support his request for the University to remove or otherwise remit the fees concerned. The matter was considered closed.
Finally, concerning the letter of the 15 May 2024, it informed the applicant that he had two remaining options to request a remission of fees. These options included making an application for “Remission of Debt in Special Circumstances”. He was also informed that such applications are required to be submitted within 12 months from completion of the units. It was also stated that an application after that time needed to include reasons why he could not submit such an application within the prescribed time limit. The applicant chose this option.
The applicant then made an application for “Remission of Debt in Special Circumstances” to Deakin University’s, Student Administration Services on or about 6 June 2024, as noted above. After the request was received it was considered and the remission of debt sought was not granted in a letter of 4 July 2024.[10] The letter observed that the Office of Dean of Students investigation did not find any university error and further found that he did enrol in the relevant units for Trimester 1 and Trimester 2, in 2010 on 30 September 2009 via “Student/Connect” using his unique username and password. The grounds relied on in rejecting the application for remission of debt in special circumstances were that the applicant’s request did not demonstrate it was not possible for him to submit his application within the prescribed time limit. Further, it stated that there was no documentation to support waiving the time limit.
The applicant sought an internal review of the decision of 4 July 2024.
The internal review was finalised in a letter by an Internal Reviewer, of Student Finance, Student Services, of Deakin University on 23 July 2024 the reviewable decision from which the applicant seeks review in this Tribunal.
THE LEGISLATIVE REGIME
The circumstances in which a person’s SLE entitlement can be re-credited are addressed in Division 79 of the HES Act.
Section 79-1 “Re-crediting a person’s SLE amount if special circumstances apply to the person”, imposes a gateway or threshold requirements upon an applicant seeking to recredit their SLE amount.
Pursuant to s 79-1 (1) of the HES Act a higher education provider must on the Secretary’s behalf, re-credit a person’s SLE with an amount equal to the EFTSL value of a unit of study if:
(a)the person has been enrolled in the unit with the provider; and
(aa)the unit would, if completed form part of a course of study undertaken with that provider or another higher education provider; and
(ab) the unit does not wholly consist of work experience in industry; and
(b)the person has not completed the requirements for the unit during the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit; and
(c)the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person (see section 79-5); and
(d)the person applies in writing to the provider for re-crediting of the SLE; and
(e)either:
(i) the application is made before the end of the application period under s 79-10; or
(ii) the provider waives the requirement that the application be made before the end of that period, on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period.
As is apparent from an examination of the language used in s 79-1, each of those subsections are conjunctive, and therefore, each of the matters identified in those subsections must be satisfied by the applicant for a person’s SLE to be re-credited.
Under s 79-5 (1) of the HES Act for the purposes of s 79-1-(1) (c) “special circumstances” apply to the person, if and only if, the higher education provider receiving the application is satisfied that circumstances apply to that person that:
(a)are beyond the person’s control; and
(b)do not make their full impact on the person until or after the census date for the unit of study in question; and
(c)make it impossible for the person to complete the requirements for the unit during the period which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.
Section 79 (2) prescribes that the Student Learning Entitlement Guidelines may specify circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied of a matter referred to in paragraph 79-5 (1) (a), (b) or (c). A decision of a higher education provider under this section must be in accordance with any such guidelines.
Section 79-10 “Application period”, if the relevant person applying under s 79-1 (1) (d) for the re-crediting of their SLE in relation to a unit of study, has withdrawn from their enrolment in the unit, and the relevant higher education provider gives notice to that person that the withdrawal has taken effect, the application period is fixed at 12 months after the day specified in the notice as the day on which the withdrawal takes effect. If, however, section 79-10 (1) does not apply, subsection (2) of that section provides that the application period for the application is 12 months after the end of the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the relevant unit.
Reference should also be made to s 79-15 of the HES Act which provides, amongst other things, that if a higher education provider waives the requirement that an application be made to it before the end of the relevant period on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period, only then, can it consider the application and notify the applicant of the decision on such application.
CONSIDERATION
Did the applicant enrol in the relevant units?
As already noted, in relevant correspondence passing between the applicant and Deakin University, several documents lodged in this proceeding including his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, and whilst in the witness box both during his evidence in chief and cross examination the applicant steadfastly denied that he had enrolled in the relevant units concerned.
Throughout his evidence when in the witness box he consistently stated, in various ways that he had nothing to do with Deakin University after 2009. On other occasions in his evidence, he described having no engagement or anything to do with Deakin University or, “disengaging” with it after 2009. In response to a question whether he agreed that he never withdrew from 2010 Trimester one and Trimester two units his response was, “It wasn’t possible for me to withdraw from those units. I had nothing to do with Deakin University then.” Once in his evidence he even speculated that the entries recording his enrolment in the relevant subjects in the University database could be the result of a malicious act.
A booklet entitled “Enrolling at Deakin” was put to the applicant in cross examination.[11] He was asked if he had seen the document before, but said not to his knowledge, however possibly he may have. He conceded it was available to him on enrolment. It is a comprehensive guide to the enrolment process at that University. It also includes reference to the “Deakin Online Portal”. It emphasises that each student must have a unique username and password before enrolment day. In cross-examination the applicant did not cavil with any of these propositions that were put to him.
[11] JTB, 510.
In cross-examination the applicant was taken to the very first document or set up (being Step 1 of 5) entitled “Declaration”.[12] It was explained by Ms Pritchard, and acknowledged by the applicant, that it is the very first page or screen that a student is required to address at the commencement of the enrolment at Deakin University. He stated that he had no reason to think that he wouldn’t have clicked the “Accept” button of that Declaration document. Further, in that document, amongst other things, the applicant made a declaration that, he agreed to pay all fees and charges arising from the enrolment, he understood he was required to have access to a computer and the Internet and would check his Deakin email account and the Student Portal at least weekly. It was readily acknowledged by the applicant that he was obliged to check the Deakin email account weekly. He also agreed that he set up a unique username and password to access Student/Connect as required. A screenshot was also produced which was created by the Student Management System at the time of the applicant’s enrolment which contained his personal details including full name, date of birth, residential address and telephone numbers.[13] The applicant readily acknowledged that this was correct and was populated by him at the time of his initial enrolment. The further steps that needed to be taken in the enrolment process and the relevant screenshots of such steps were also in evidence and put to the applicant in cross examination.[14] He did not take issue with any of them.
[12] JTB, 509.
[13] JTB, 450.
[14] JTB, 519, 520 and 521.

In cross-examination the applicant was taken to 2 brochures published by Deakin University entitled “Fees and Charges 2009”[15] and “Student Fees and Charges 2010”.[16] It was put to the applicant that these documents were posted to him at the address recorded upon his enrolment. His response was that he did not recall receiving them. However, he did acknowledge that he read such booklets as and when he received them. The contents of several of the clauses in these booklets, which were the same, were put to the applicant. They included, that it was the applicant’s responsibility to access his invoices online via Student/Connect, that he was responsible for ensuring that all financial obligations to the University were met on time, which he acknowledged. Further, he was referred to the specific clauses of those booklets which referred to the Commonwealth Assistance Notice. (Described as “your HECS HELP debt”). Those clauses also informed the reader that information concerning this question could be accessed by selecting the “Commonwealth Assistance Notice (CAN) link on Student/Connect. The applicant also acknowledged these clauses when put to him in cross-examination.
[15] JTB, 45.
[16] JTB, 98.
Another relevant clause from the Fees and Charges booklets that were put to the applicant included the question of “Re-crediting and remission of Student Learning Entitlement and HECS-HELP debt.”[17] The contents of those clauses were put to the applicant in cross examination. In particular, the clause that stated a student could not apply for a recredit or remission if they have successfully completed the unit of study. To be eligible for a recredit or remission, the student must apply to the University in writing within 12 months of the withdrawal date, or if they have not withdrawn, reply within 12 months of the end of the period of study in which the unit was or was to be undertaken. He was also directed during that line of cross examination to a further section of that clause which provided that the University must re-credit the SLE and remit any debt if the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person that are, amongst other things, beyond the person’s control. The applicant acknowledged these clauses. He also acknowledged that the clauses were in the same or substantially similar form in the 2010 version of the document entitled “Student Fees and Charges 2010”. He also acknowledged that each of these documents and the terms contained within them were available for him to access on the Student/Connect portal. It seems more probable than not to the Tribunal that the applicant, who presented as an intelligent and conscientious individual, would have read the Fees and Charges booklets for each of the academic years 2009 and 2010.
[17] JTB, 55. A clause in the same form in the 2010 document is at JTB, 109.
There was a comprehensive document also in evidence entitled “Information for Commonwealth supported students”, “HECS-HELP 2009”. Reference need not be made to its contents, other than to say that it provided comprehensive details of all relevant information for Commonwealth supported students during that year. Amongst that information, were paragraphs entitled, “How do I formally withdraw from a unit?”[18] and “How do I apply to get my SLE re-credited in debt removed?”[19] These paragraphs were written in easily comprehensible and economic language that could leave the reader in no doubt as to what needed to be done to formally withdraw from a unit of study and have their SLE re-credited. In cross examination the applicant candidly acknowledged that these clauses cast upon him a responsibility to take the steps prescribed to effect a formal withdrawal from a unit and apply to have his SLE re-credited. Having had the opportunity to observe the applicant, the Tribunal has no doubt that he was perfectly capable of reading, comprehending and acting on these documents as required. The Tribunal concludes that the applicant knew precisely what he had to do.
[18] JTB, 323.
[19] JTB, 325.
Other screenshots extracted from the Student Management System of Deakin University were carefully put to the applicant in cross examination. A screenshot described as “Fees and invoices” provided details of the applicant’s Commonwealth supported places, an explanation of what a Commonwealth supported place is and, most critically for the purposes of this application, the “Census dates” for each trimester in 2009 and 2010.[20] The applicant also acknowledged this and his familiarity with such a window or screenshot.
[20] JTB, 134.
On this note, a screenshot was put to the applicant in cross examination “Enrolment and course planning”.[21] That window gave the student access to all relevant enrolment information through a series of different links. It also included reference to the applicable “Trimester dates”. It also enabled a student such as the applicant to cross check what Commonwealth Assistance Notices may have been sent to them and the relevant Census dates. The applicant readily acknowledged in cross-examination that all that information was there, readily obtainable and would have been available to him.
[21] JTB, 135.
Commensurate with his enrolment at Deakin University, the applicant completed a Commonwealth Assistance Form on 27 January 2009. The screenshots for this completion were in evidence before the Tribunal.[22]
[22] JTB, 81-82.
A relevant screenshot or window from the Student Management System that was also put to the applicant in cross examination was entitled, “Re-crediting and remission of Student Learning Entitlement and HECS-HEP Debt.”[23] That screenshot explained to students the process for re-crediting and remission of the SLE, and as was acknowledged by the applicant in evidence that such application must be made within 12 months of the withdrawal date. He also acknowledged that such an application could be made from that window in the Student/Connect portal by clicking on the hyperlink contained in it entitled “Re-Crediting and Remission Application Form”.[24]
[23] JTB, 136
[24] That form was also in evidence and put to the applicant in cross examination. JTB, 246.
A screenshot or window, “Important dates in 2010” was also shown to the applicant in cross examination.[25] That screenshot reveals that for Trimester 1, units in 2010 the study period started on 8 March 2010 and ended on 18 June 2010. For Trimester 2, units in 2010 the study period started on 12 July 2010 and ended on 22 October 2010. The applicant acknowledged the accuracy of these dates. It was also put to him that if an application to remit a HECS debt was to be made within 12 months for Trimester 1, 2010 it had to be made by 18 June 2011 and for Trimester 2, 2010 it had to be made by 22 October 2011. He agreed with these contentions. As his application for remission was submitted on 6 June 2024, he agreed that it was well outside the applicable 12 months period.
[25] JTB, 184.
The applicant agreed in cross examination that the Deakin University Student Management System or information portal contained information concerning his enrolment. He also readily conceded that there were links about how to access information concerning such enrolment. When it was suggested to him that with a student ID and password he could have logged on to the Student/Connect portal, his response was that in 2009 the page was available to him but not available to him in 2010 as “I wasn’t a student then”. Then his evidence shifted slightly when he then said immediately thereafter “I am not sure”. He then said, “I didn’t have anything to do with Deakin University after 2009, so I can’t say if I could have logged on with a student ID or password after that date.”
When further probed about whether he was saying after 2009 that he had nothing further to do with Deakin University he was asked if he submitted a withdrawal from course at that time, to which he replied “no”. He readily acknowledged that to withdraw from the Bachelor of Commerce course he needed to submit a form. The applicable form was put to him which he acknowledged.[26] The applicant persisted with his response that he shouldn’t be enrolled in units that he had not enrolled in. In short, there was nothing to withdraw from.
[26] JTB, 509.
In response to a further series of questions about the years between 2011 and 2024 the applicant readily conceded that there was no information before the Tribunal concerning his physical health during those years, no information concerning his mental capacity during those years and no information suggesting he was incapacitated in any way during those years.
As for enrolment in the relevant units as noted in paragraph 14 above, the analysis of the Student Management System undertaken by Ms Pritchard as it functioned in 2009 and 2010, reveals that the applicant self-enrolled in those 2010 units using the Student/Connect Student Management System. Such units being added to his enrolment at 1:44 PM on 30 September 2009. As was explained by Ms Pritchard and was apparent from an examination of each of the screenshots for the subjects concerned, the process is not dissimilar to any form of Internet-based shopping programs. An individual window was created for each subject when selected by the student. After selection, those subjects are placed in a “cart” and when the total number of subjects selected the process is completed by clicking on a hyperlink, icon or perhaps to the layman a button, which confirms the enrolment and generates a receipt which can be either downloaded or printed. In this case the receipt number was 472867.[27] In cross-examination the applicant was taken to and shown this screenshot. He was asked if the receipt would have been sent to him, to which he replied, “yes”. In the face of this admission, apart from any other evidence before the Tribunal, it concludes that the applicant enrolled in the relevant units as depicted in that screenshot.
[27] The window with the receipt identified is JTB, 97. The windows for each of the subjects are JTB, 90-96.
Amongst other things, the applicant was in cross examination by Mr Johnson, carefully taken through a series of screenshots extracted by Ms Pritchard of relevant entries concerning the applicant’s enrolment recorded in its Callista Student Management System. Notwithstanding these matters being carefully put to him he continued to deny that he had enrolled in the relevant units.
On the preponderance of the evidence before the Tribunal it is unable to accept the applicant’s evidence that he did not enrol in the relevant units. There are several reasons for this.
Some detail has already been given earlier in these reasons to the Callista Student Management System adopted by Deakin University. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence of Ms Pritchard and the explanation she offered of a range of documents that were in evidence including screenshots derived from the Callista Student Management System recording various entries made in that system with respect to the applicant.
There were screenshots which captured the date and time that the applicant was enrolled in each of the units concerned.[28] Reference is made to each of those screenshots for their full force and effect. The first box in each screenshot records the student ID or unique identifier. The second box adjacent to the first one records the name of the applicant. There is a history which includes the date and the time that each entry is made in that system. It also records the unit by code number and identifies the academic period concerned being the 2010 academic year and the teaching period which in this case is divided into Trimesters 1 and 2.
[28] JTB 24-30.
Also in evidence was a screenshot from 30 September 2009.[29] Details of that entry have already been referred to. It reveals that the applicant logged on that day at 1:44 PM and updated his units for the 2010 academic year. Ms Prichard explained that the system generates a receipt in the form of an on-screen successful message when an enrolment is completed or otherwise altered. She also explained that the applicant subsequently viewed his examination details for the second trimester 2009 in October 2009. This was after he had enrolled for the 2010 academic year. Consequently, when that access was made to the system by the applicant in October 2009 the units for which he had enrolled by then for the 2010 academic year would have been displayed.
[29] JTB, 452.
There was another aspect of Ms Pritchard’s evidence that was put to the applicant when he was in the witness box. There were further screenshots that revealed his Student/Connect portal was accessed 4 October 2009. He gained access to the portal for examination details and examination venue details. The applicant stated he couldn’t recall accessing the portal on that date. He stated he did recall undertaking some examinations at Deakin University at that time. He assumed he did access it but contended he would be guessing in doing so. However, as Ms Pritchard stated in her evidence that when accessing the portal on that day, which was after the Trimester 1- and 2-unit enrolment had taken place, he would have seen the 2010-unit enrolment. The applicant denied this and stated further that had he seen them he would have taken action. The Tribunal cannot accept that he did not access his Student/Connect portal on that day. When it was suggested to him that on this day there was no evidence to suggest someone else logged on using his username or password, the applicant’s response was to assert that, “The burden of proof should be on Deakin University or the Department”. Insofar as there is a burden of proof, for reasons that will be articulated later, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has been established that the applicant, on the preponderance of the evidence, did access the Student/Connect portal on the days revealed by the records in evidence before it as verified by Ms Pritchard.
Helpfully, in evidence was a table that had been created by Ms Pritchard by making a structured query command of the Deakin University Callista Student Management System being its Oracle relational database, with respect to the applicant’s enrolment in various subjects at the University.[30] She described it as recording the transactions that occur on a student enrolment, as it is self-evident from an examination of it. One would have to say that it establishes a regular pattern of use over some time by the applicant with respect to his enrolment in subjects at the University including the relevant units. As already noted, she reiterated that access to this portal could only be achieved by use of a combination of a unique student ID or username and a password.
[30] JTB, 506.
Another aspect of Ms Pritchard’s evidence should be touched on. The applicant in his evidence at one stage somewhat obliquely suggested that it may have been possible that a member of the University staff could have enrolled the applicant in these subjects. This seems to the Tribunal improbable for several reasons. It was explained by Ms Pritchard that in 2010 students were expected to, and did, enrol in units themselves via the Student/Connect module. The university’s systems or employees do not enrol students unless they demonstrated an inability to do so. Quite obviously this may be in the case of a disabled student for example. In that case the enrolment process undertaken on behalf of such a student by the University staff members concerned are documented in the Calista Student Management System. This includes the username of the staff member who undertakes the task, and it is recorded in the audit forms or screenshots such as those that were in evidence with respect to the applicant at pages 24-30 of the JTB. Indeed, an example of that was referred to by Ms Pritchard. There was a subject for which the applicant enrolled which was deleted on the grounds that it was “invalid”.[31] This occurs where either the applicant has not satisfied a pre-requisite to enable them to study the subject or it is withdrawn or discontinued from the course curriculum after enrolment. The entry concerned recorded that it was deleted on the grounds of invalidity by a member of the University staff known as “Patti”. As Ms Pritchard emphasised such an entry could not be completed without the details of the University staff member being recorded including their unique ID, as it was in the document before this Tribunal.
[31] JTB, 506.
As already noted, a document known as an enrolment audit table within the Student Management System of Deakin University with respect to the applicant was in evidence.[32] Ms Pritchard explained that she generated the table by making a structured query command of the University’s Oracle database which contains all the data entered into the Student Management System as previously explained. The table records all the transactions that occurred with respect to the applicant and his student enrolment at the University. As she further explained, the only way access to the system could have been obtained was by using a combination of the applicant’s unique username and password. The document is extensive and shows that access to the system using the applicant’s username and password occurred on many occasions. It seems to the Tribunal more probable than not that access to the system on each of those occasions as recorded in this table was undertaken by the applicant.
[32] JTB, 506.
There is no evidence to suggest that a University staff member accessed the applicant’s portal in the Callista Student Management System. Even if, as remote as it seems, a staff member did so (assuming in a way that does not seem possible they could do so without recording their unique ID as previously explained) one has to question why they would have enrolled the applicant in the subjects they did? There seems to be no rational foundation for suggesting that such a course of action might have occurred on the part of a University staff member. It is simply implausible.
Further, there was no evidence to suggest that the University Callista Student Management System had been the subject of unauthorised access, computer hacking or other misuse at any time. Also, even if there was some improper access, which seems highly improbable, one has to pose the question why would the culprit specifically access the applicant’s portal and then proceed to enrol him in the units concerned? It just does not make any sense.
There was also evidence contradicting the assertions of the applicant that he was not contacted by the University after the 2009 academic year. One of the screenshots introduced into evidence by Ms Pritchard recorded an entry in the Student Management system on 31 August 2010.[33] It recorded an email being sent to the applicant requesting that he attend a Study Support Information Session. It recorded that the applicant did not attend or reply to the email. It should be noted that the email concerned was sent to the applicant’s email address contained in the student portal of the Student Management System. The applicant’s response was that if it was his student email address rather than his personal email address, he would not have seen it.
[33] JTB, 255.
There were copies of 3 letters in evidence before the Tribunal entitled “Student Academic Progress-Warning”, “Student Academic Progress-Proposal to exclude you from M300” and “Student Academic Progress-Confirmation of Exclusion”; they were dated 12 July 2010, 12 November 2010 and 3 December 2010.[34] Each of those letters were addressed to the applicant’s address at the time which he acknowledged had been accurately recorded in the Student Management System of the University. Those letters warn the recipient of the circumstances under which a student may be excluded or their enrolment otherwise restricted if they did not appear to be making satisfactory academic progress. The applicant denied ever seeing them and in cross examination became slightly argumentative by questioning the cross examiner about the method of post of such letters. For instance, he asked on several occasions whether they had been sent by registered post. In cross examination of Ms Pritchard, he also asked her whether those letters were sent by registered post. In her evidence she stated that an examination of the University records and files indicated to her that such letters would have been posted. The Tribunal accepts Ms Pritchard’s evidence that it is likely that the unsatisfactory progress letters were posted. The University has a sophisticated recordkeeping system which is accompanied by processes for the dispatch of correspondence. Electronically or physically. It seems improbable to the Tribunal that none of the three Student Academic Progress letters would not have arrived at the applicant’s then current address. The recipient of those letters, reading them even in a cursory fashion, would be left in no doubt that he was enrolled for the relevant units in the 2010 academic year.
[34] JTB, 178, 190 and 194.

The question of the applicant’s enrolment in the relevant units and the recording of such enrolment in the University Student Management System as has been fairly extensively canvassed earlier in these reasons does attract, in the view of this Tribunal, a practical application of the rules of evidence concerning business records and documents produced by processes, machines and other devices in the course of that business as contemplated by the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995. Section 69 provides that the hearsay rule does not apply to a document that forms part of the records belonging to or kept by a person, body or organisation in the course of, or for the purposes of a business. There seems to be no reason why this approach should not be adopted by this Tribunal in this application. The evidence of Ms Pritchard provides an appropriate foundation for the reception into evidence of the records she produced, being the screenshots, audit forms, tables, correspondence and other documents derived from the Deakin University Student Management System as described. It can be reasonably supposed from the evidence she gave that she has personal knowledge of the facts contained in those documents on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied. Her evidence revealed that she is possessed of a detailed knowledge of the University recordkeeping system, and in particular the Callista Student Management System. Her evidence was given in a candid way and is accepted by the Tribunal.
Reference should also be made to s 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 which addresses documents produced by processes, machines and other devices. When a document produced by such a device or process is tendered in evidence, if the document is, or was at the time it was produced, part of the records of, or kept for the purposes of, a business and the device or process is, or was at that time, used for the purposes of the business it is presumed (unless evidence sufficient to raise doubt about the presumption is adduced) that, in producing the document on that occasion in question, the device or process produces a particular outcome. Once again, the evidentiary foundation provided by Ms Pritchard concerning the screenshots, audit forms, tables, correspondence and other information derived from the Deakin University Callista Student Management System provides the necessary foundation or platform for the reception into evidence of those documents and any other documents derived from that system.
Once documents are received in evidence either under the business record provisions or provisions concerning documents produced by processes, machines and other devices, the effect is that they are prima facie the proof of their contents. The Tribunal sees no reason to rebut this presumption in this instance. There is nothing to suggest that the sophisticated relational database, which the Oracle based system is, would not accurately record all the information entered into it. There is no material before the Tribunal that rebuts any presumption to this effect, or enables it to draw any other conclusions, or inferences including that the information recorded in such database is inaccurate. Particularly, that the applicant’s enrolment in the relevant units occurred as and when described for the 2010 academic year.
Reference should also be made to another aspect of the applicant’s evidence. He stated that in late 2009 he had a telephone call with an unnamed staff member of Deakin University. He said, “My phone call was for withdrawing from 2009 units”. His contention was that this phone call, if it occurred, was sufficient notice or sufficient action to effect a withdrawal from the relevant units at that time.
There are several observations to make concerning this evidence. Firstly, if such a phone call was capable of, or indeed did effect a withdrawal of the relevant units, there was still no application within the applicable time frame for re-credit of the applicant’s SLE balance. Secondly, as to whether or not such a phone call was capable of or indeed did effect a withdrawal from the relevant units, the Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms Pritchard, which seems perfectly logical, that to formally affect a withdrawal it is incumbent upon a student to apply in writing and once such withdrawal has been accepted then seek a re-crediting of his SLE balance within the applicable period. It seems unlikely that during any phone call to Deakin University that a staff member, contrary to well-established policies and implemented systems, would have informed the applicant that withdrawal from the units had been affected. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot accept the applicant’s evidence on this topic. It may well be that he telephoned the University in late 2009 as he says. However, it did not result in a formal withdrawal from the relevant units.
Therefore, in conclusion with respect to this question, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant did enrol in the relevant units for Trimesters 1 and 2 of the 2010 academic year.
One should comment on what to make of the applicant’s evidence. It was not submitted, and the Tribunal does not find, that his evidence that he did not enrol in the relevant units was in any way dishonest. He did not present as such a witness or a person who would be so Machiavellian. The Tribunal considers that this situation the applicant finds himself in needs to be viewed with a degree of realism. The events that this application is concerned with occurred over 15 years ago. Further, as the applicant candidly admitted, in the year 2010 he completely disengaged from any interaction with the University. At one stage in his cross-examination, he was asked what he actually was doing in the year 2010. His response was that he believed he spent 6 months in India and 3 months in Sri Lanka. When all these factors are taken into account, it seems more probable than not, to the Tribunal, that when the applicant ceased having any contact with the University, he simply overlooked the fact that he was still enrolled in the units concerned. As many years passed, this view of things by him probably crystallised. His later belief that he had not enrolled it seems was probably mistaken.
Should the 12-month application period be waived?
In addressing this question several matters should be recorded at the outset. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant did not withdraw from the relevant units as he was able to do. Therefore, the applicable timeframes within which he was able to make an application for the recredit of the SLE amounts were as follows:
(a)For Trimester 1, 2010 units, from 18 June 2010 to 18 June 2011; and
(b)For Trimester 2, 2010 units, from 22 October 2010 to 22 October 2011.
As previously noted earlier in these reasons, the application for recredit of the applicant’s SLE amounts was made on 6 June 2024. That was approximately 13 years after the expiration dates for the Trimester 1 and Trimester 2, 2010 units as referred to above. Put another way, he did not apply within the 12 months’ timeframes for each Trimester’s units. The time had long passed.
The applicant has to demonstrate that it was not possible for him to make the application to recredit his SLE balance within the applicable time limits referred to previously.
It should be reiterated that the Tribunal has found that the applicant was enrolled in the relevant units for Trimesters 1 and 2 of the 2010 academic year. Further, the Tribunal has found that he was aware of the requirement to formally withdraw from the units and make an application for the re-crediting of his SLE balance within the 12 months’ timeframe concerned.
As is apparent from an examination of the language used in s 79-1 (1) (e) of the HES Act the Tribunal as decision-maker can only waive the requirement that the application be made within the 12 months period on the ground that it was not possible for the application to be made before the end of that period. The construction and application of that section to determine that it was not possible for the application to be made before the end of the period is not a particularly difficult task. There are several decisions of this Tribunal which address the question and specify what is required to establish that the application was not possible. Various terms have been used. They include that the Tribunal must be satisfied that there was a very serious constraint on an applicant’s ability to act and apply[35], that it was unachievable or unobtainable[36] or the application could not have been made due to some incapacity, whether mental or physical, without necessarily being confined to medical conditions to make the application at all.[37]
[35] Brown and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 518, [35].
[36] TYJD and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment [2021] AATA 2184, [27]
[37] Thomson and Secretary, Department of Education Skills and Employment [2020] AATA 4672 at [32].
In answering this question, several relevant matters have emerged from the evidence. They are referred to in no particular level of importance or priority.
Firstly, the applicant readily conceded that within the relevant periods concerned, at no time was he experiencing or suffering any form of incapacity, including mental, physical or any other type which in any way would have prevented him from making an application for the re-credit of his SLE balance.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that establishes that the applicant’s ability to formally withdraw from the relevant units and seek a re-credit of his SLE balance was unachievable or unobtainable. Had he accessed his Student/Connect he would have been readily able to do so.
Similarly, there is no evidence to establish that there was a very serious constraint on the applicant’s ability to withdraw from the relevant units and seek a re-credit of his SLE balance. Once again, had he accessed the Student/Connect portal he could have readily attended to this task. Indeed, even if one takes into account his evidence that for a significant portion of the year 2010, he was overseas in India and Sri Lanka, he surely could have obtained Internet access to attend to the task where he minded to do so.
The applicant presented in giving his evidence, as is clearly the case given that he has now qualified as a pilot on sophisticated commercial passenger jet aircraft, that he was perfectly capable of navigating the process of formally withdrawing from the relevant units and applying for re-credit of his SLE balance within the applicable timeframes. As already observed earlier in these reasons when he was taken to the relevant documentation and the Student/Connect portal, he was quite capable of undertaking what is a comparatively straightforward task. He is an intelligent and articulate man.
The respondent identifies several facts that it relies upon to further justify the finding that the applicant knew of or otherwise ought to have been aware of his enrolment in the relevant units at Deakin University together with the HECS-HELP debt and what he was required to do to formally withdraw from those units and seek a recredit of his SLE balance.[38] These factors should be mentioned. They are as follows:
(a)His completion of the Commonwealth Assistance Form on 27 January 2009 which confirmed that he was in receipt of HECS-HELP assistance.
(b)That he completed the declaration window or form by clicking the acceptance link or icon when he enrolled at Deakin, and further when he enrolled for the relevant units agreeing to pay all fees and charges arising from his enrolment, as he acknowledged in his evidence.
(c)The findings above that he enrolled in the relevant units for Trimesters 1 and 2 of the 2010 academic years on 30 September 2009. Such enrolment was undertaken by him gaining access to his Student/Connect portal of the Callista Student Management System by use of his unique student ID and password, as referred to earlier in these reasons.
(d)That Deakin University sent to the applicant letters concerning unsatisfactory academic progress 12 July 2010, 12 November 2010 and 3 December 2010, which the Tribunal has found on the preponderance of the evidence that the applicant received as they were sent to the same address where he resided at all times on those dates being his parents’ home in Wendouree.[39]
(e)He was issued with a Commonwealth Assistance Notice for Trimester 1, 21 April 2010 and another such notice for Trimester 2, 6 September 2010. Further, Deakin University forwarded a text message to the applicant on 14 September 2010 advising him that an electronic Commonwealth Assistance Notice was available. The text message was sent to the applicant’s mobile phone number which had been entered into his Student/Connect portal upon his enrolment. It was also a mobile telephone number that he acknowledged when in the witness box he used at that time. Further, Ms Pritchard in her evidence confirmed that such notification of the Commonwealth Assistance Notice was sent to the applicant.
[38] Paragraph 56 of the respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions of 29 July 2025 is referred to.
[39] Paragraph 58 above concerning these letters is referred to and repeated.
The Tribunal was referred to the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Forer and Secretary, Department of Education, a decision of Member Burke.[40] The Tribunal agrees with the approach taken in that matter. It is equally apposite to this case. The applicant could readily have been aware of the fact that he remained enrolled in the relevant units if he had cross checked his Student/Connect portal, as he had agreed to do when he first enrolled at Deakin University. It was not impracticable for him to have verified his enrolment status in this way. Even if he was overseas access to the Internet should have enabled him to undertake this comparatively straightforward task.
[40] [2023] AATA 1271 at [39].
It seems more probable than not that the applicant, as he candidly admitted in his evidence, disengaged with Deakin University and embarked upon his comparatively lengthy overseas travels throughout 2010. Probably whilst doing so he simply did not turn his mind to the question of his continuing enrolment. As is apparent, to his credit, he recognised that a Bachelor of Commerce degree was probably not for him. His mind turned to other career paths which he has now successfully been able to achieve. Unfortunately, the enrolment in the relevant units was overlooked and it cannot be said that there was in any way an inability to act and apply for the remission of his SLE balance at the time. It was not unachievable or unobtainable, he did not suffer any medical or other incapacity, and it was reasonably possible in the circumstances.
Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the relevant application period should not be waived. Therefore, the Tribunal accepts the respondent’s contention that this application cannot succeed.
CONCLUSION
By reason of the foregoing matters the reviewable decision is affirmed.