1. In an email to the University the Applicant stated:

Unfortunately, my mother's health condition worsened after the census date in semester 1. Due to the cold weather, she was extremely ill and her body was fighting to stay warm. I was required to support her additionally over the winter months which we had not expected before the census date. > > I enrolled in one subject for semester 2, hoping that as the weather got warmer she would be able to heal, although her health continued to deteriorate. Due to it being a new health crisis, we along with doctors, hospitals, and several specialists, could not predict the changes to her health and the appropriate steps to take for her to get better.

2. At hearing, the Applicant's evidence was to the effect that:

(a) Her mother had contracted COVID on a trip to Sri Lanka in January 2023 and the Applicant needed to care for her as she experienced serious long-term health effects, especially in the period January to November 2023. Her mother had improved in the past few months (of 2025), but needed constant support, going from a healthy person in her 50s to needing a walking stick in a short period of time. She was an only child and the only help her mother had, was from her and her mother's partner; > > (b) She was required to work longer hours in her employment in the period May 2023 to July 2023 due to staffing issues. She was told that she would be given flexibility, but instead her pay rate was changed and the business didn't replace staff they fired, requiring her to take on extra hours. She felt she couldn't quit because she needed the money for rent and food. She asked the business to step back and reduce her hours, for more reasonable shifts, but there was no response to her requests. She eventually quit in July 2023 and shortly after found a new job; > > (c) She was in a relationship with Mr A who became increasingly abusive when he starting using illegal drugs again, which was around August 2023. Mr A was living with the Applicant from around July 2023. The relationship ended around December 2024 following a few instances of family violence; > > (d) From May 2023 onwards her anxiety worsened, making her too embarrassed to go to class and too anxious to do anything including personal care; > > (e) She started seeing a psychologist, Sally Capper, at the end of 2023. This was after Semester 2 because she "couldn't afford to see anyone before then" but had telephoned free counselling services such as Beyond Blue. She saw Ms Capper a few times but would have seen her more if she could afford it; > > (f) She describes the new job she started in around July/August 2023 as "the most exhausting job I ever had". She asked for more reasonable shifts but this was denied; > > (g) She saw Dr Hadler, her regular GP, from 2022 onwards but didn't see him much in 2023; > > (h) She thought she had withdrawn from the "Introduction to the Australian Legal Systems and Legal Methods" course in Semester 2 prior to the census date.

3. Under cross examination the Applicant accepted that there were no negative impacts from her relationship in Semester 1. Mr A relapsed at the end of August 2023, following which she began experiencing verbal and financial abuse in their relationship, which ultimately developed into physical abuse of her.
4. When questioned about her failure to complete various unit assessments and exams in Semester 1 2023, the Applicant stated that her mother's health was getting worse from around May 2023, at the same time that her work was "falling apart". She started writing the assessments which were due in May 2023 but was then impacted by anxiety and work issues, which impacted her ability to complete them. She was "on track for the first part of the semester and everything changed a few months in". She didn't see a health practitioner regarding her anxiety because "it was paralysing... I didn't know how to handle it. I know how to treat anxiety, but I couldn't do it. Only once I got medicated I realised was normal feels like... it costs money to see a doctor. I couldn't afford it." When asked why she didn't contact lecturers or tutors for extensions, she said "I really couldn't do anything. I couldn't even shower".
5. In relation to Semester 2 2023, the Applicant agreed that she had not submitted any assignments or attended exams for the subject she was enrolled in because she thought she had withdrawn from the subject prior to the census date:

To be honest, I thought I had withdrawn, but obviously I didn't check that properly. > > I think with everything else, I I mustn't have done it right or I didn't do it. > > ... I don't know how I missed that date. > > And I genuinely, yeah, I I did think that I withdrew it.

1. The Tribunal has power to review a reviewable decision which has been confirmed under s 209-10 of the HES Act: s 212-1(1) HES Act.
2. A HECS-HELP debt is a debt incurred to the Commonwealth, by a person who is loaned the student contribution amount for a unit of study by the Commonwealth, pursuant to s 96-1 of the HES Act: s 137-5 HES Act.
3. A HECS-HELP debt is incurred immediately after the census date for the unit of study: s 137-5(3) HES Act. A HECS-HELP debt is included in the calculation of a person's HELP balance: s 128-15 HES Act.
4. Under s 97-25(2) of the HES Act, a person's HELP balance may be re-credited if:

(a) the person has been enrolled in the unit; > > (b) they have not completed the requirements for the unit during the period they were to undertake the unit; > > (c) special circumstances apply; > > (d) they apply in writing for a recredit; and > > (e) the application is made within the relevant 12-month application period (see s 97-35 of the HES Act).

5. The requirements for s 97-25(2) are cumulative, meaning that for the test to apply and for the applicant's HELP balance to be re-credited, the applicant must satisfy all elements of the statutory test: see Georgiou and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2019] AATA 170 at [17]; Haliem and Secretary, Department of Education [2024] AATA 14 at [51].
6. Special circumstances are defined by s 97-30 of the HES Act:

Special circumstances > > (1) For the purposes of paragraph 97-25(2)(c), special circumstances apply to the person if, and only if, the higher education provider receiving the application is satisfied that circumstances apply to the person that: > > (a) are beyond the person's control; and > > (b) do not make their full impact on the person until on or after the census date for the unit of study in question; and > > (c) make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit in the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit. > > (2) If the Administration Guidelines specify circumstances in which a higher education provider will be satisfied of a matter referred to in paragraph 36 - 21(1)(a), (b) or (c), any decision of a higher education provider under this section must be in accordance with any such guidelines. > > Note: The matters referred to in paragraphs 36 - 21(1)(a), (b) and (c) (which relate to special circumstances that apply to repaying an amount of student contribution or HECS - HELP) are identical to the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section.

7. The 'Administration Guidelines' referred to at s 97-30(2) of the HES Act are the Higher Education Support (Administration) Guidelines 2022 (Guidelines), made pursuant to s 238-10 of the HES Act. The Guidelines provide guidance in considering the application of s 97-30 of the HES Act. Relevantly at Part 3, paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the Guidelines:

12 Circumstances beyond a person's control > > (1) For the purposes of paragraphs 36-13(3)(a) and 36-21(1)(a) of the Act, a higher education provider will be satisfied that a person's circumstances are beyond that person's control if a situation occurs which the provider reasonably considers is not due to the person's action or inaction, either direct or indirect, and for which the person is not responsible. > > (2) The situation referred to in subsection (1) must be unusual, uncommon or abnormal. > > Note : Circumstances specified in this provision also apply for the purposes of subsections 97-30(2) and 104-30(2) of the Act. > > 13 Circumstances that did not make their full impact until on or after the census date > > (1) For the purposes of paragraphs 36-13(3)(b) and 36-21(1)(b) of the Act, a higher education provider will be satisfied that a person's circumstances did not make their full impact on the person until on or after the census date for a unit of study if the person's circumstances occur: > > (a) before the census date, but worsen after that day; > > (b) before the census date, but the full effect or magnitude does not become apparent until on or after that day; or > > (c) on or after the census date. > > Note : Circumstances specified in this provision also apply for the purposes of subsections 97-30(2) and 104-30(2) of the Act. > > 14 Circumstances that make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements > > (1) For the purposes of paragraphs 36-13(3)(c) and 36-21(1)(c) of the Act, a higher education provider will be satisfied that a person's circumstances make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit of study if the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit in the following kinds of circumstances: > > (a) medical circumstances - for example, where a person's medical condition has changed to such an extent that he or she is unable to continue studying; > > (b) family or personal circumstances - for example, death or severe medical problems within a family, or unforeseen family financial difficulties, so that it is unreasonable to expect a person to continue studies; > > (c) employment related circumstances - for example, where a person's employment status or arrangements have changed so that the person is unable to continue his or her studies, and this change is beyond the person's control; or > > (d) course related circumstances - for example, where the provider has changed the unit it had offered and the person is disadvantaged by either not being able to complete the unit, or not being given credit towards other units or course.

1. For the purpose of my consideration of whether "special circumstances" apply, it is appropriate to divide the relevant units of study to those enrolled in Semester 1 and those enrolled in Semester 2. This is because there are different census dates each semester, and the Applicant's circumstances at the time of, and immediately after, the relevant census dates differ between Semester 1 and Semester 2.
2. I note that in case management, the Tribunal took the unusual course of requiring the Respondent to write to the Applicant and identify for her the insufficiencies in her evidence, and exactly what evidence she could obtain to support her application to the Tribunal. In their letter of 15 November 2024, the Respondent stated:

The respondent outlines the following information which you may consider providing in support of your application: > > 14.1. a letter from a medical practitioner who has been treating your mother advising: > > a. when your mother contracted COVID-19. > > b. what the long-term effects are that she has been suffering. > > c. when these symptoms began and at what time they got worse. > > d. what care your mother has required during this time and who was providing that care. > > 14.2. any evidence of the hours you were working prior to the census date on 31 March 2024. > > 14.3. any evidence of you requesting a reduction in your workload from your employer and that request being refused. > > 14.4. a letter from a medical practitioner (this may be a Psychologist or General Practitioner), preferably who treated you during the relevant period, that: > > a. explains when you began suffering from your mental health condition, the severity of your condition, how your condition may have worsened during Semester 1 and 2 of 2023 and when any worsening of your condition occurred. > > b. explains how in their professional opinion the circumstances prevented you from being able to complete your studies during Semester 1 and 2 of 2023 with reference to relevant facts, including that you submitted assessments during Semester 1 of 2023 up to 13 May 2023. > > c. states how long the medical practitioner has been treating you, refer specifically to any interaction the practitioner had with you during Semester 1 and 2 of 2023 and identify what other information their assessment is based on. > > d. attaches any contemporaneous notes recording that practitioner's treatment of you, or otherwise identify the basis upon which that practitioner has made a historical diagnosis of your relevant medical conditions. > > 14.5. a personal statement detailing the impact of your circumstances and why this made it impracticable for you to complete the requirements of the units in Semester 1 and 2 of 2023.

3. Despite this assistance, the Applicant did not provide additional evidence to the Tribunal in relation to her carer's responsibilities, her work obligations, or treatment by a medical practitioner during 2023.

1. In Semester 1, the census date for the 4 units of study in which the Applicant was enrolled was 31 March 2023. The Applicant's relevant circumstances in Semester 1 of 2023, according to her evidence, were threefold:

(a) She was required to help her mother, who suffered increasing poor health after contracting COVID-19 overseas in January 2023; > > (b) She was working for an employer who placed increasing demands on her, particularly from May 2023 to July 2023; > > (c) She suffered from anxiety, which became worse from May 2023.

1. The Respondent did not dispute that the Applicant's mother was suffering from increasing poor health after contracting COVID-19 overseas in January 2023. Even accepting that her mother's condition worsened over time, it was unclear on the evidence before the Tribunal exactly when this occurred and the specific impact this had on the Applicant's ability to continue her studies after the census date.
2. The Applicant's evidence was that she was visiting her mother at various periods during 2023, but did not live with her mother and was not providing daily care to her. Her mother's partner was providing daily care:

She needed someone there all the time. She lives 3 to 4 hours from Melbourne so it's difficult to find someone to help her... > > I didn't realise how bad it was. I still hoped she would get better with some time off. I was up there to see her - I couldn't predict the extent. > > I did my best, travelling out a few times. Every two weeks, when I was off work. > > [After the census date] I went up for longer periods. Saw her get worse. Visited for days at a time. Called her every day.

3. The Applicant noted under cross examination that her mother had travelled to the Northern Territory for a few weeks in winter to "get away from the cold".
4. The Respondent submitted that the evidence demonstrated the Applicant was already facing issues with her mother's care prior to the census date in Semester 1.
5. Other than the Applicant's assertions, there was no independent evidence regarding the Applicant's mother's medical condition before the Tribunal, and no independent evidence regarding the Applicant's role in caring for her mother, or how this impacted her. This is despite the Tribunal providing the Applicant with ample opportunity to request and obtain such evidence from her mother's treating practitioners, or her own.
6. On the evidence before me, I accept that the Applicant's mother suffered increasing poor health in 2023 and that the Applicant was required to assist her mother. I accept that those circumstances were "unusual, uncommon or abnormal" and were therefore beyond the Applicant's control. However, there is insufficient evidence upon which I could make a finding that the Applicant's carer's responsibilities did not make their full impact until after the census date in Semester 1 2023, or that those carer's responsibilities made it impracticable for her to meet her course requirements.

1. The objective evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the Applicant's employment consisted of 2 payslips which demonstrate that in May 2023, she was working more than 45 hours per week, including mainly weekends and evenings.
2. In oral evidence, the Applicant stated that she was working as a bartender on Chapel Street, initially working 15 hours per week and her employer had assured her of flexibility to enable her to complete her university assignments, which was important to her. Prior to the 31 March 2023 census date, there was another employee working full-time, and 3 other staff members working in addition to her. She said that:

"...all three left after March. It was just me left then. Because of the working conditions it was hard for them [the employer] to find anyone else".

3. When her working hours were consequently increased, the Applicant claimed she took steps to reduce the hours but:

...the messages were all deleted. I asked to go to the old rate, to step down. I would work on uni [assignments] during breaks. They saw but there was no response to my requests. Then a few months later, they claimed they didn't see my requests."

4. The Applicant claimed that she tried to seek alternative employment, but did not resign because:

I did take steps. It was difficult balancing everything. They knew about Mum, uni, said they'd be flexible, but didn't live up to that. It was hard to find something new. > > I didn't have a choice. I had to pay for rent, food.

5. The University records of the Applicant's participation (see paragraph ‎8(c) above) demonstrate that prior to May 2023, she was able to adequately engage with her unit requirements and complete assignments. This supports the Applicant's evidence that her workload markedly increased from May 2023. I accept therefore that these circumstances did not make their full impact until after the census date. I also accept that working more than 45 hours per week, as the Applicant seems to have been doing in May 2023, would make it impracticable for her to complete her university requirements.
6. The Respondent submitted that there was no objective evidence that the Applicant had attempted to reduce her work hours or find alternative employment. I agree with that submission. Even if, as the Applicant claims, that evidence was contained in Whatsapp messages which were deleted by her employer, she could still have provided the Tribunal with some evidence that such communications took place. There would likely be records demonstrating that she sent and received messages, telephoned or emailed her employer, even if the contents of those communications were not available. There was no such evidence provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant. There is also no evidence that the Applicant applied for any other employment during this period. In those circumstances I cannot find that these were circumstances which were "unusual, uncommon or abnormal" and were beyond the Applicant's control.

1. The Applicant's evidence was that she suffered increasing anxiety in 2023:

From May onwards, my anxiety was getting worse. Too embarrassed to go to class. Too anxious to do anything.

2. She didn't seek professional help for her symptoms until the end of 2023. Under cross examination she provided various reasons for this:

I have seen psychologists for probably 20, yeah 20 years on and off regarding my anxiety. > > I was seeing someone all through 2020-2021 but they just weren't the right person. > > I think I had a number of times I had to called, like I didn't know of any services that were free that I could afford except for maybe calling like Beyond Blue on those services. > > So I had called them a few times when things were hard, but I didn't have a regular psychologist because I couldn't afford a regular one. > > ... > > I really thought I could do it but I just broke.

3. The medical evidence provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal included:

(a) Letter from Sally Capper (Psychologist) dated 23 June 2024 stating that that the Applicant was receiving treatment for anxiety and multiple stressors, and that she was well placed to return to academic studies in 2024; > > (b) Medical/health Practitioner Assessment completed by Dr Kieran Hadler dated 29 June 2024 stating that the Applicant suffered from anxiety/depression from January 2023, exacerbated by situational crisis and family illness; > > (c) Medical Certificate from Dr Nisha Iyer dated 24 April 2024 regarding a medical procedure in March 2024; > > (d) Letter from Dr Farhana Quamar dated 8 August 2024 stating that she had seen the Applicant multiple times since 16 May 2024 due to the Applicant's worsening anxiety disorder, panic attacks, stress and situational crisis.

4. Sally Capper and Dr Quamar's evidence addresses the Applicant's mental health issues in 2024. Dr Iyer's certificate relates to a medical procedure the Applicant had in March 2024, which was not present in Semester 1 (or 2) of 2023. As outlined to the Applicant by the Respondent in their letter of 14 November 2024, none of the medical evidence provided by the Applicant assists the Tribunal in understanding what the Applicant's mental health status was before the Semester 1 census date, in comparison to after that census date. There is therefore no medical evidence addressing the impact of the Applicant's mental health concerns on her university studies in Semester 1 2023.
5. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I am not convinced that the Applicant's mental health issues in the circumstances of 2023 were "unusual, uncommon or abnormal". There is simply insufficient evidence from the Applicant's treating medical practitioners by which to make this assessment. I accept generally that mental health issues of anxiety and depression, if untreated, may be circumstances beyond a person's control, but this would require specific evidence from a treating practitioner to establish. While I accept that, on the basis of Dr Hadler's assessment, the Applicant suffered from some form of anxiety and depression in Semester 1 of 2023, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find that this was a condition which worsened or which reached its full impact after the census date, or which made it impracticable for her to complete the unit requirements.

1. On the evidence before the Tribunal, for the reasons outlined above I am unable to find that "special circumstances" applied to the Applicant in Semester 1 of 2023.

1. In Semester 2, the Applicant enrolled in just 1 unit of study. The census date for that unit was 31 August 2023.
2. On the Applicant's own evidence, she believed that she had withdrawn from the unit of study prior to the census date of 31 August 2023. This is supported by the University's evidence (above at paragraph ‎8(c)) that she did not complete any of the assignments for Semester 2 and had "low to no participation". The Applicant claimed that she had planned to withdraw and could not remember much of the end of 2023. She said that if "circumstances were different I could have finished the subject".
3. Based on the Applicant's evidence (outlined above at paragraph ‎14), I find that the Applicant's failure to properly withdraw from the unit in Semester 2 prior to the census date was entirely within her control. It therefore cannot constitute "special circumstances".
4. Putting aside the issue of her failed withdrawal, the Applicant's relevant circumstances in Semester 2 of 2023, according to her evidence, were largely similar to those in Semester 1:

(a) She was required to help her mother, who suffered increasing poor health after contracting COVID-19 overseas in January 2023; > > (b) Her new employer placed unreasonable demands on her; > > (c) Worsening anxiety.

5. In addition, in relation to Semester 2 2023 the Applicant relied on:

(d) An abusive relationship with Mr A, whose drug abuse relapsed in around August 2023.

6. With respect to the Applicant's carer's responsibilities, for the same reasons outlined above, I accept that her mother's poor health constituted circumstances that were beyond the Applicant's control. However, there is insufficient evidence upon which I could make a finding that the Applicant's carer's responsibilities did not make their full impact until after the census date in Semester 2 2023, or that those carer's responsibilities made it impracticable for her to meet her course requirements in Semester 2 2023.
7. In relation to the Applicant's work obligations in Semester 2, the only evidence before the Tribunal is that provided orally by the Applicant. Even accepting that the Applicant's evidence that her new job was "physically hard", that she was "overworked" and it "was the most exhausting job" the Applicant ever had, and that her requests for "reasonable" shifts were denied, it is unclear when the job started, whether it was difficult from the outset or became increasingly difficult, when she had made requests for more reasonable shifts, how it made completing her university requirements impracticable, or why the circumstances were beyond her control. There is therefore insufficient evidence upon which the Tribunal could make a finding that the Applicant's work obligations in Semester 2 of 2023 constituted "special circumstances".
8. In relation to the Applicant's anxiety, for the same reasons outlined above, there is insufficient evidence upon which I could make a finding that she felt the full impact of her mental health issues after the census date in Semester 2 2023, or that these impacts made it impracticable for her to complete the unit requirements.
9. The Applicant's evidence of her relationship with Mr A included a 1 page extract from a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order made on 7 January 2025 against Mr A, but this did not disclose the substance or reasons for the order, or the date that any family violence occurred. The Applicant also provided a page from a medical report about Mr A dated to 2019, the stated purpose of which she said was "showing where the domestic violence stemmed from - addiction and mental health issues"; and 6 undated photographs displaying bruises on limbs. Although that documentary evidence was largely unhelpful because it consisted only of extracts, on the basis of that evidence and the Applicant's oral evidence regarding her relationship, I can accept the Applicant's evidence that she was in an abusive relationship with Mr A. It is unclear, however, whether the full impacts of that abuse were felt by the Applicant after the census date in Semester 2 2023, after the semester concluded, or the following year in 2024. There is also no evidence upon which the Tribunal could make a finding that this relationship made it impracticable for the Applicant to complete her studies in Semester 2 of 2023.
10. On the evidence before the Tribunal, for the reasons outlined above, I am unable to find that "special circumstances" applied to the Applicant in Semester 2 of 2023.

1. On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that the Applicant experienced some personal challenges during 2023. However, it is not enough that the Applicant suffered difficulties or challenges in undertaking her studies. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Applicant experienced "special circumstances" within the meaning of in 97-30(1) of the HES Act. There is no evidence supporting a finding that the impact of her claimed challenges, including caring for her mother, increased employment demands, mental health issues, and an abusive personal relationship, occurred or increased on or after the census dates of 31 March 2023 for the 4 subjects in Semester 1 2023, or on or after 31 August 2023 for the 1 subject in Semester 2 2023.
2. The correct and preferable decision is therefore to affirm the Respondent's decision.

I certify that the preceding 56 (fifty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Dinnen.

..............[SGD]...............................................