3. The applicant confirmed that the statements she had lodged in the matter that were before the Tribunal were true and correct. She was cross-examined. The Tribunal would wish to acknowledge that the cross examination of the applicant was conducted both sympathetically and professionally by Ms Letcher-Boldt, and on occasion it was not easy for the applicant. The Tribunal is mindful of this fact and took it into account in reaching its conclusions.
4. Both the applicant's sister and her father gave evidence that the statements they had made and lodged in support of the applicant were true and correct. They were not subject to cross examination.
5. The documentary evidence consisted of the "T" documents, Supplementary "T" documents ("ST documents") and a hearing bundle. There were also several statements lodged by the applicant from her, her father, sister and a friend, Ms Stewart. They have all been read and considered by the Tribunal.

1. Under section 137-5 (1) of the Act, a HECS-HELP debt is incurred by a student if the Commonwealth of Australia loans that student funds used to discharge their liability for the student contribution amount with respect to a unit of study at an approved institution. The HECS-HELP debt is under section 137-5 (3) taken to have been incurred by such a person immediately after the "Census Date" for the unit of study. Section 97-25 (2) of the Act makes provision for remission of the person's HECS-HELP debt in certain circumstances.
2. Critically, though amongst other factors, entitlement to remission requires the applicant to satisfy the education provider, or in this case the Tribunal as decision-maker, that special circumstances apply to them. The application of this section, including whether the applicant can establish the existence of special circumstances as required, and whether or not the applicant is entitled to a remission of her HECS-HELP debt is the gravamen of this matter. Further details of section 97-25 (2) of the Act, its construction and application, will be addressed later in these reasons.
3. Several background facts relevant to this application are not controversial. On 1 December 2021, the applicant enrolled in several subjects in the Bachelor of Communications (Journalism) course at RMIT University. The subjects are as follows:

Semester 1, 2022 (Census date: 31 March 2022) > > (a) 1031-Introduction to Cinema Studies; > > (b) 2640-Photojournalism; > > (c) 2657-Understanding Journalism,

each with an Equivalent Full-Time Capsule Load of 0.125 (Semester 1 Units)

(a) 2653-Journalism Technologies; and

(b) 2658-Journalism Placement,

each with an Equivalent Full-Time Capsule Load of 0.125 (Semester 2 Units).[2]

1. The "Start date" for Semester 1 was 28 February 2022 and its "End date" was 24 June 2022.
2. The "Start date" for Semester 2 was 18 July 2022 and its "End date" was 11 November 2022.
3. On 1 December 2021, following her enrolment in the units, the applicant lodged a "Request for a Commonwealth supported place and HECS-HELP loan".[3] This document, sometimes referred to in correspondence and other submissions before the Tribunal as a "Commonwealth Assistance Form" ("eCAF") was lodged online. The contents of that document are referred to in their entirety for their full force and effect. Amongst other things, the document contained several sections that are relevant to this application. They included "Section B repaying your loan", "Declarations", "By submitting this eCAF I am requesting that" and "By submitting this eCAF I understand the following". Reference to several of the specific clauses articulated under each of these subject headings in the eCAF form will be made later in these reasons. They assume considerable significance for the purposes of determining the outcome of this application.
4. The applicant's lodging of an Request for a Commonwealth supported place and HECS-HELP loan or eCAF form raises another issue. The eCAF form included a declaration made by the applicant warranting that she had read a booklet entitled "2022 Commonwealth Supported Places and HECS- HELP Information". More detail about the contents of that booklet will be referred to later in these reasons however, it should be observed, that the front cover of the booklet contains the following words, "This booklet is about subsidised university places and the HECS- HELP loan to pay your student contributions."
5. In her oral evidence and her statements, the applicant acknowledged that whilst documents such as the 2022 Commonwealth Supported Places and HECS- HELP Information booklet were sent to her, more probably than not, she did not read them. Her evidence was that at the time, not only when the information booklet was sent to her, but other documents, she was simply not in a mental state that permitted her to process, understand and most likely comprehend the contents of these documents. This was because the applicant suffered from severe depression caused by several things, including the grief at the death of her mother and an eating disorder. Had she done read the information, it was her evidence that she would have unquestionably taken the necessary steps to withdraw from the units in the prescribed manner and in time, and in doing so avoiding the predicament she now finds herself in. The records before the Tribunal revealed that when sent to the applicant, they were forwarded to her private and RMIT University email addresses. Her private email address was expressed by her to be her preferred method of contact.
6. Unfortunately, there was limited medical evidence confirming the conditions from which the applicant alleged she suffered from before the Tribunal. There were some clinical notes of her treating doctor, produced in response to summonses that were served on her that she was taken to in cross examination, about which more will be addressed later in these reasons.
7. As with most of these cases, a vast array of documentary material was generated which was placed before the Tribunal. In many respects it simply was not helpful. It is not necessary for the purposes of these reasons to microscopically refer to every one of those documents. There was much documentary material generated by RMIT University that was sent to the applicant, or otherwise recorded that institution's dealings with her.
8. It should be observed that the authenticity or accuracy of the records produced by the respondent at the hearing were not challenged by the applicant. Further, the fact that RMIT University maintained what is obviously a computerised record-keeping system 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 or organisation, as contemplated by the Commonwealth Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). 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.[4] The business records provisions and other provisions of that act facilitate the proof of recurring transactions maintained by such persons. They are prima facie proof of their contents.
9. Although strictly the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, there seems to be no reason why this approach should not be adopted by this Tribunal in this application. The Tribunal sees no reason not to accept such records as have been produced as being accurate.
10. A brief summary can be given which accurately captures some further essential facts. The applicant was informed on 1 December 2021 by RMIT University that a Commonwealth assistance loan had been granted. Shortly thereafter, she was provided with a Statement of Enrolment in the units for both Semester 1 and Semester 2.
11. Importantly for the purposes of this application, RMIT University sent to the applicant on 28 April 2022 a Commonwealth Assistance Notice.[5] That notice is not difficult to comprehend. It records the "Census Date Range", the "Unit of Study", "Census Date" and "Date of Issue", the fee for each Unit of study, the "HELP debt/assistance" (being the applicable fee for each Unit of Study) and most critically for the purposes of this application, "Total HECS/HELP debt: $7,313." The document is comparatively easy to read and comprehend.
12. It is appropriate at this juncture of these reasons to record some other aspects of the applicant's evidence.
13. When giving her oral evidence, the applicant stated she did not attend one class that she had enrolled for at RMIT University. She also explained that she had on or around the same time, enrolled at the University of Melbourne for an Arts degree, majoring in anthropology. That course commenced in Semester 1 of 2022. The applicant also stated that she only attended the classes at the University of Melbourne for approximately two weeks before she dropped out of that course. She believed she did so before the relevant Census date. She explained that enrolling in both the University of Melbourne and RMIT University added her confusion. In one passage of her evidence, she stated that, "I assumed that as I was in one that it would automatically unenroll me from the other uni." Further, she explained that because she was going to one university and not attending the other, she did not think there would be a problem (with RMIT), and she thought insofar as RMIT University was concerned that "it would fall way."
14. There was another answer that the applicant gave in cross examination that also bears significantly on the questions for determination in this application. She was probed about whether she withdrew or "unenrolled" (to use her term) from the University of Melbourne. Her response was that she assumed that she had "unenrolled" from, and that she must have taken some sort of action, as she has not heard from the University concerning any outstanding fees or any other matter.
15. Whilst the evidence from her on this question is scant, it would seem that if she has not been contacted by the University of Melbourne, she must have been able to withdraw from those units, and presumably seek remission of any HECS-HELP debt in relation to them. That being so, one must pose the question: if she was able to attend to this task with respect to the units for which she was enrolled in the Arts degree at the University of Melbourne, why was she was not able to undertake the same task with respect to those units for which she was enrolled at RMIT University? It also poses another question: if the medical conditions from which she was suffering so affected her, as she says, how was she able to successfully seek remission of any HECS-HELP debt in relation to those units but unable to attend the same task for the units she was involved in at RMIT University?
16. By June 2022, it was evident that the applicant had not been participating in the units which she was involved. Dr Vine, a senior lecturer in the Journalism Program of RMIT University, sent an email to the applicant on 19 June 2022, recording (amongst other things) that she had not handed in assessments and offered her the opportunity to discuss the matter. Dr Vine also included an understanding enquiry about her welfare.[6]
17. It appears that the applicant did not respond to that contact from Dr Vine. In accordance with what appears to be RMIT University protocols in such circumstances, a document was created which is known as a "Missing Student Report". That document records that the applicant had not attended classes since the beginning of the semester. It also recorded that the applicant had not responded to emails concerning academic progress, and nor had she successfully completed any courses in the program. It logged attempts to contact the applicant on several occasions by phone and email. On one occasion a voicemail was left with the applicant's father requesting that he pass on a message to check her emails.
18. On 20 September 2022, an email from the RMIT University was sent to the applicant requesting that she contact its Student Welfare Team urgently. She responded on 23 September 2024 thanking them for their concern and advising that she had never attended a class and was presently overseas.[7] It is further confirmation, if it were needed, that she was receiving and checking her emails. In her evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant stated this was her first visit to New York City and that she was there for several weeks. The University promptly responded to the applicant's email. In that response, she was advised to check her student email account regarding her academic process. She was also alerted to the fact that she was currently enrolled in courses for Semester 2, 2022. Those courses were identified. She was also advised that the Census Date for Semester 2, 2022 had now passed and her tuition fees for such courses had been deferred to HECS-HELP. She was invited to reply with any queries or concerns.
19. On 24 November 2022, the applicant sent a further email to RMIT University. She advised that she had not attended any classes at RMIT and requested that they assist her in rectifying the issue as she was attending a different University and would like to avoid paying tuition fees for RMIT.[8] This email indicates that the applicant was very alert to avoiding any further liability for fees, however that may arise. It also demonstrates that, at the time, she had a reasonable capacity for reading and comprehension. It is contrary to the observations about her capacity made by her father, sister and Ms Stewart, about which more details will be provided later.
20. A document entitled "Student Enquiry Request" records an enquiry made by the applicant that she had made numerous attempts to contact RMIT University regarding "un-enrolling" and in resolving her subsequent HECS debt for a degree that she had never commenced. She requested assistance in seeking a "refund" of the loan.[9] The request is shown as having been resolved on 27 February 2023. It appears the student enquiry made by the applicant was resolved in an email sent by a university officer at RMIT Student Connect on 22 February 2023. That email, amongst other things, advised the applicant that she had enrolled in a full-time study load for Semesters 1 and 2 of the 2022 academic year. It also advised her that she did not drop any of those subjects prior to the relevant semester Census Dates. The email explained to her that she may be eligible for remission (removal) of her HECS-HELP loan debt. It explained what conditions she had to satisfy in order to do so and directed her to hyperlinks which provided the relevant explanation of the process and an "Application for Remission (Removal) of Debt in Special Circumstances Form".
21. Further emails passed between RMIT University and the respondent throughout the remainder of 2023. It is not necessary to refer to these emails in any detail. On 3 January 2024, the applicant made a further enquiry with RMIT University seeking what she described as the exemption of pending fees associated with her enrolling. Once again, a Student Enquiry Request was raised recording the details of this contact from the applicant concerning this question.[10] A further response was forthcoming from the Student Connect section of RMIT at the University advising the applicant that she could make an application for remission of a HESA (removal) of debt and explained to her how to do so.[11]
22. The applicant completed and lodged with RMIT University the appropriate form for remission of debt in special circumstances for HECS-HELP on 4 March 2024.[12] Accompanying that form was a personal statement, and supporting information including certificates from treating healthcare practitioners, about which more will be said later. In her personal statement the applicant, amongst other things, referred to the grief she experienced following the death of her mother, housing instability, family obligations, a relapse of her bulimia and exacerbated mental health conditions. These meant that she was unable to attend or begin any classes at RMIT University. One should observe that she did not in that personal statement rely upon matters that she did when in the witness box at the hearing of this application, where she stated that because she had enrolled in the University of Melbourne for the arts degree majoring in anthropology, she had assumed that her enrolment at the RMIT University had ceased, or to use her words, that she was "unenrolled". It is surprising, it if this was indeed her assumption, that she did not raise it in the personal statement accompanying her application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt in March 2024.
23. As noted in the previous paragraph, there were certificates from various healthcare professionals who had treated the applicant. Her treating general practitioner Dr Munoz in a medical certificate dated 1 March 2024 stated that from 9 August 2021 until 31 December 2021 the applicant was suffering from "complicated grief, relapsed bulimia nervosa and significant anxiety." When asked for her professional assessment of the type and level of impact of the condition on the student's activities, it was recorded by Dr Munoz that:

(a) she was unable to travel or attend; > > (b) unable to do sustain reading, notetaking and writing; and > > (c) unable to perform a task requiring intense concentration for 1-2 hours.

24. A certificate dated 20 February 2024 from Mr Hands, the applicant's treating psychologist, also accompanied the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt on 4 March 2024. He recorded having 13 sessions with the applicant between March and November 2021. He determined that she was suffering from grief over the passing of her mother. Somewhat surprisingly, he did not refer to the other conditions identified by Dr Munoz in her certificate referred to above. He described the condition as "episodic/fluctuating". He also gave his professional assessment concerning the type and level of impact of the conditions on the applicant's activities as follows

(a) she was unable to travel or attend; > > (b) unable to do sustained reading, notetaking and writing.

25. In the section concerning any additional information, he stated that as the applicant's psychologist at the time, he knew she was not fit to study due to grief related issues.
26. Her application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt was denied on 22 April 2024.[13] Whilst the contents of that letter speak for itself, it stated that the request for remission was denied because, based on the documentation provided to the decision-maker (an RMIT Remissions Officer), they were not satisfied that it was not possible for the applicant to make her application before the end of the relevant application period. This was because the supporting documentation did not evidence that the applicant was incapacitated to the extent that she was unable to apply for a remission within the limitation period.
27. Understandably, on 18 June 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the decision of 22 April 2024.[14] That application reiterated the matters were in her original application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt.
28. Following receipt of the application for an internal review, a Manager from the Assessment Adjustments and University Appeals of RMIT University sent a detailed email on 21 June 2024 to the applicant's treating general practitioner Dr Munoz which asked a series of very specific questions.[15] The contents of that letter to Dr Munoz are referred to in their entirety for the full force and effect. It was a carefully written letter and emphasised that the reviewer was sympathetic to the applicant's circumstances. However, it did note that they were obliged to undertake such an assessment by the Act, which included the question of special circumstances. Dr Munoz was asked, amongst other things, to express a professional opinion whether the applicant was incapacitated to the extent that she was unable to apply for remission of debt within the timely application periods for both Semester 1, 2022 and Semester 2, 2022 courses, that is, by 24 June 2023 and 11 November 2023 respectively.
29. Dr Munoz responded on 25 June 2024 in the following terms: "I am unable to supply information that meets all of those criteria over that time frame."[16]
30. The reviewer sent a letter in similar terms to Mr Hands on 28 June 2024.[17] He responded in a short email on 4 July 2024.[18] He advised that the only thing he could add was that grief is complex and can impact unexpectedly, well after the event. He described the grief experienced by the applicant understandably, as having been intense and ongoing. Further, Mr Hands stated it would be impossible to assess accurately the level of her incapacitation during the dates specified in the letter of request. He stated that the applicant's grief could account for such oversight on her part. Ultimately, he considered this was a question of compassionate allowance, to be decided by the University.
31. On 10 July 2024, the internal review decision confirmed the original decision to deny remission of the HECS-HELP debt as sought by the applicant. The contents of that letter, and a later letter of 15 July 2024 also containing the internal review decision, which was updated to remove an incorrect reference to a late review request speak for themselves.[19] The decision turned on what the decision-maker considered was a lack of supporting medical documentation to evidence the applicant's incapacity to an extent that she was unable to apply within the 12 month application periods, which ended on 24 June 2023 and 11 November 2023.
32. It is, as noted earlier, from this decision of the RMIT University that the applicant seeks review in this Tribunal.

1. It is appropriate to reproduce the applicable sections of the Act relevant to this application.
2. Section 97.25 (2) provides as follows:

(2) A higher education provider must, on the * Secretary's behalf, re - credit a person's * HELP balance with an amount equal to the amounts of * HECS - HELP assistance that the person received for a unit of study if:

(a) the person has been enrolled in the unit with the provider; 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 97 - 30); and

(d) the person applies in writing to the provider for re - crediting of the HELP balance; and

(i) the application is made before the end of the application period under section 97 - [20](https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa35_; 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.

1. Section 97-30 (1), "Special circumstances" provides as follows:

(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:

(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.

1. Section 97-35 "Application period" provides as follows:

(a) the person applying under paragraph 97 - 25(2)(d) for the re - crediting of the person's * HELP balance in relation to a unit of study has withdrawn his or her enrolment in the unit; and

(b) the higher education provider gives notice to the person that the withdrawal has taken effect;

the application period for the application is the period of 12 months after the day specified in the notice as the day the withdrawal takes effect.

(2) If subsection (1) does not apply, the application period for the application is the period of 12 months after the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.

1. The respondent has conceded that the applicant satisfies the criteria contained in subsection 97-25 (2) of the Act, save and except for the question of whether she is a person to whom "special circumstances" apply. Given this concession, the Tribunal considers that the following questions arise for its determination in this matter:

(a) Is the Tribunal, as decision-maker, satisfied that special circumstances apply to the applicant within the meaning of subsection 97-30 (1) of the Act; and > > (b) Was the application for remission of the applicant's HECS-HELP debt made within the "application period" prescribed by section 97-35 of the Act?

Was the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt made by the applicant within the "application period" prescribed by section 97-35 of the Act?

1. The evidence before the Tribunal establishes that the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt was not made by the applicant within the "application period" prescribed by section 97-35 of the Act.
2. As is apparent from the facts outlined earlier in these reasons, for the Semester 1 Units, the end date was 24 June 2022. Therefore, the application period concluded on 24 June 2023.
3. Concerning the Semester 2 Units, the end date was 11 November 2022. Therefore, the application period concluded on 11 November 2023.
4. Given that the application made by the applicant the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt was made on 4 March 2024, it was not made within the "application period" prescribed by section 97-35 of the Act.

1. As a starting point it is necessary to consider what circumstances or grounds the applicant relies upon that prevented her from making the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt within the application period. Those grounds have been canvassed earlier in these reasons. However, it is appropriate to reiterate some of them as emerged in both the oral and documentary evidence that was before the Tribunal.
2. At various times, the applicant stated that her inability to make the relevant application was due to her suffering from severe depression and bulimia. She considered that these conditions were either triggered or contributed to by the grief that she suffered from the passing of her mother in September 2020. She also pointed to experiencing those times family estrangement, homelessness, financial instability, and a lack of emotional support around this period.
3. The applicant's contentions were supported by her father and her sister, who gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing of the application and affirmed the contents of the written statements.
4. Her father observed that once the applicant's mental health deteriorated, he considered that she was simply not capable of beginning the courses, attending or managing any of the paperwork that was necessary for her to complete to make the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt. Additionally, he stated he personally witnessed the applicant's attempts to contact RMIT University from 2022 to 2024 which she sought to resolve the matter. According to his observations, she was never able to bypass what he described as a cycle of the email instructions and administrative barriers. He considered that in her then-mental state, such tasks were not just difficult; they were completely beyond her capacity. He also stated that in his opinion from 2020 to late 2024 the applicant had "essentially shut down". He stated she was too unwell, both physically and mentally, to manage a life in a normal way, let alone navigate a complicated university enrolment system.
5. The applicant's sister, who also gave oral evidence on affirmation and affirmed the contents of her statement as true and correct, made similar observations. She stated that the combination of severe depression, an eating disorder and the emotional strain of her mother's death, left the applicant with almost no capacity to function beyond what she described as "_surviva_l". Her evidence was slightly different to that of her father in that she observed from the years 2023 to 2023 that the applicant was in a state of near total shutdown. Additionally, the applicant's sister emphasised that she experienced "constant emotional abuse" throughout those years from their mother's side of the family which had a profound effect upon her.
6. Although she did not give evidence, a statement was lodged by the applicant with the Tribunal from Ms Stewart. It has been read and considered by the Tribunal. She recorded that during approximately late 2023 to early 2024 she observed the applicant as surviving and not functioning. She described the applicant's mental health, including suicidal ideation, bulimia, immediate financial and housing pressures, and the absences of steady in-person support making it not possible for her to manage her daily life, let alone what she described as complex university administration. She concluded that it wasn't avoidance, but it was "incapacity."

Did the circumstances relied upon by the applicant render it not possible for the application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt to be made before the expiration of the relevant application periods?

1. The accounts given by the applicant, her father, her sister and Ms Stewart, as outlined above, are at variance with the evidence before the Tribunal from the healthcare professionals who have treated her from time to time. This is not to mention some of the applicant's oral evidence.
2. It will be recalled in Dr Munoz's email of 25 June 2024, she was unable to verify that the applicant experienced the conditions in the way that she said she did during the relevant time frame. As her treating general practitioner, one would have expected that if she had observed the manifestations of the conditions from which she suffered, as recounted by the applicant during the relevant application periods, she would have said so. Certainly, if the applicant was suffering from an "incapacity" (as described by Ms Stewart) or a "shutdown" (as described by the applicant's father and sister) one would have thought a competent treating general practitioner would have said so in the medical certificate and all the emails provided. It should also be recalled that the medical certificate dated 1 March 2024 stated that, from 9 August 2021 until 31 December 2021, the applicant experienced symptoms which were "episodic/fluctuating". They were certainly not continuous. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot conclude that any of the evidence of Dr Munoz assists the applicant in establishing that it was not possible for the application to be made before the relevant application periods expired.
3. The evidence from Mr Hands also does not assist the applicant. His certificate, dated 20 February 2024, and email, of 4 July 2024, certainly did not go anywhere near expressing the conclusion that the applicant's conditions were such that it was not possible for her to make the application before the expiration of the application periods. Indeed, it will be recalled that his email of 4 July 2024 stated it would be impossible to assess accurately the level of her incapacitation during the dates specified in the letter of request. One would have expected that as an experienced treating psychologist, who had consulted the applicant 13 occasions between March and November 2021, had he observed she was incapacitated to the extent that it was not possible for her to attend to making an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt to be made before the expiration of the relevant application periods, would have said so. This is apart from the fact that he only consulted her well before the relevant application periods commenced and concluded.
4. The respondent highlighted several other matters which they stated were inconsistent with the applicant's claims that the several conditions and circumstances she experienced during the relevant application periods rendered her unable to attend to making an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the relevant application periods.
5. Clinical notes from Dr Munoz were produced in response to summons.[20] Several things emerge from an examination of these clinical notes. Some of the entries contained in them were put to the applicant during cross examination.
6. The contents of the clinical notes reveal that the applicant was able to regularly attend medical appointments between March 2022 in February 2023, and also, when necessary, undergo blood tests. The conditions revealed by an examination of these clinical notes, save for one entry, are not those conditions which she described in her evidence, and various statements which she relied upon as rendering it not possible for her to make an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the expiration of the relevant application periods. Each of the clinical notes are carefully divided into several headings. They include a subheading entitled "Reason for visit". The conditions in those clinical notes include "Acne", "Contraceptive advice", "Bulimia nervosa" and "Results discussed".
7. Once again, at the risk of being repetitive, with respect to the conditions claimed by her, one would have expected if the applicant was "rendered incapacitated" as she mentioned in one of her statements, suffering from an "incapacity" (as described by Ms Stewart) or a "shutdown" (as described by the applicant's father and sister), she would have mentioned this to her treating general practitioner and, more probably than not, had she done so it would have been recorded in the clinical note made by the doctor each time there was a consultation. This should be considered with some degree of realism. Having had the opportunity to observe the applicant giving her evidence it is apparent that she is an articulate and intelligent woman. It seems unlikely that if the claimed conditions were of the nature and seriousness, as she and other witnesses described, that they would not have been appropriately mentioned to a treating general practitioner during the several consultations they had throughout this time.
8. The applicant was (to some extent) probed about this inconsistency and the failure to mention these matters to her treating general practitioner when she was cross-examined. Her response was that she thought she was embarrassed at the time to be speaking to her doctor about depression. She even said that she did not think she realised at the time it was a problem. Her evidence then shifted slightly, and she stated she didn't mention it because she did not remember. She emphasised however that even though she didn't mention depression, it didn't mean she wasn't suffering. The applicant did bring up her eating disorders during a consultation with Dr Munoz on 13 February 2023. The clinical note of that consultation recorded a discussion between them concerning how the applicant could manage her eating, which was described as from time to time still being disordered and that she would purge approximately once every three months if very stressed. The Tribunal would observe that this entry in the clinical notes is not consistent with the evidence relied on by the applicant that throughout the relevant periods she was suffering from an "incapacity" (as described by Ms Stewart) or a "shutdown" (as described by the applicant's father and sister), the implication or inference being invited is that such conditions were being suffered by her continuously throughout that period.
9. The discussion recorded in that clinical note also canvassed stress management, identifying triggers, managing exercise for good health and not to manage weight by obsessing with numbers. The applicant also explained she considered that the eating disorders she experienced were a representation or manifestation of the depression from which she suffered at the relevant times. For the reasons explained, the Tribunal finds this explanation difficult to accept. Surely, if the applicant was suffering from depression to the extent she and her witnesses contend, it would have seen the light of day somewhere in one of Dr Munoz's clinical notes. Also, one would have expected it to have been addressed in the medical certificate and email from her that was produced to RMIT University.
10. There is another matter that should be referred to that emerges from both an examination of several of the clinical notes of the applicant's treating general practitioner and other documentary evidence before the Tribunal. A clinical note of the applicant's consultation with Dr Munoz on 17 May 2022 revealed that she informed her that she was intending to travel overseas.[21] When probed about this entry in the witness box the applicant stated that she had plans to travel to New York City to write about food. She conceded that she was working to save money for the trip. Additionally, she also conceded that she made travel arrangements such as booking tickets and obtaining a United States visa. As is well known then and now the processes for applying for a visa to the United States of America is not an easy one. This task did involve attention to completion and lodging of documents. She stated that she travelled to the United States twice around that time, the longest period being for several months' duration.
11. Another clinical note of a consultation on 30 January 2023 was in evidence. That clinical note also recorded that she was moving to New York City for work. The applicant in cross examination did not recall that consultation, but assumed it was correct. The Tribunal has no doubt that it was.
12. As has already been noted, the applicant referred to overseas travel in an email to RMIT University on 20 September 2022.
13. That the applicant was able to plan, prepare and undertake the tasks explained to enable her to travel to New York City is inconsistent with her contentions that the claimed conditions she was experiencing at the relevant time rendered her unable, or even incapacitated from making an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the expiration of the relevant application periods. The two tasks, particularly applying for a United States, visa would appear at face value to be of similar complexity and, if one could be undertaken it seems so could the other.
14. The respondent also placed emphasis on the fact that RMIT University had communicated with the applicant on numerous occasions throughout the year 2022 at her email addresses.[22] Whilst not bound by the rules of evidence Tribunal does consider that the provisions of section 161 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) also have application in this instance. It provides that if a document purports to contain a record of an electronic communication, it is presumed (unless evidence sufficient to raise doubt about the presumption is adduced) that the communication was sent or made on the day on which, at the time at which, in from the place from which it appears from the document to have been sent or made; and was received at the destination to which it appears from the document to have been sent. Given that a number of emails and electronic communications were sent to the applicant at the email addresses concerned, it seems unlikely that she was not alerted to the fact that she was still enrolled at RMIT University, and did not consider what she needed to do to rectify the situation including, but not limited to making an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the expiration of the relevant application periods.
15. This prompts the Tribunal to return to the question of the applicant's evidence concerning her enrolment at the University of Melbourne for an Arts degree, majoring in anthropology. That she assumed that she had "unenrolled" from and that she must have taken some sort of action as she has not heard from the University concerning any outstanding fees or any other matter, is also inconsistent with her contentions that the claimed circumstances that she relies upon did not make it possible for her to make an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the relevant application periods.
16. As already noted, the evidence from the applicant on the issue of her withdrawal from enrolment at the University of Melbourne is scant, it would seem that if she has not been contacted by the University, she must have been able to, on or around the same time that is relevant to the subject matter of this application, withdraw from those units and presumably seek remission of any HECS-HELP debt in relation to them, if she needed to. That being so, one must pose the question if she was able to attend to this task with respect to the units for which she was enrolled in the arts degree at the University of Melbourne; why she was not able to undertake the same task with respect to those units for which she was enrolled at RMIT University? It also poses another question if the medical conditions from which she was suffering so affected her as she says, how was she able to successfully seek remission of any HECS-HELP debt in relation to those units but unable to attend the same task for the units she was involved in at RMIT University?
17. When one considers the preponderance of the evidence before the Tribunal on this discrete question, it seems more probable than not that the evidence given by the applicant in response to cross-examination on this matter is more likely the rational explanation for what occurred. Her assumption that because she never attended any classes at RMIT University that she would immediately be "unenrolled", and that was her assumption that she didn't think there were any actions that she would have to take, is where the truth lies. At one stage in response to a question in cross examination she stated, "It was very simple as I didn't think it was a big problem as I had never gone." It is easy to see how she would adopt that assumption. Unfortunately, it would have been simple for her to have cross checked this.
18. Additionally, in this context, it will be recalled there was her evidence that she assumed because she was enrolled in one University she would be automatically "unenrolled" on the other. This is not the case.
19. These two explanations by the applicant in her cross examination and in particular, her candid concession that in retrospect she realised she was wrong, provide the answer. It seems that this incorrect assumption on her part was the reason why she failed to make an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the expiration of the relevant application periods, rather than the claimed conditions or circumstances that she relies upon.
20. For these reasons the Tribunal is unable to conclude that it was not possible for the applicant to make an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the end of the relevant application periods. Having so reached this conclusion, the Tribunal is unable to waive the requirement that such applications be made before the end of those periods.

Do "special circumstances" apply to the applicant within the meaning of subsection 97-30 (1) of the Act?

1. In embarking upon a consideration of this question it is important to record that the criteria contained in section 97-30 (1) of the Act are conjunctive and therefore, if any one of them are not established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, special circumstances will not be held to apply to the person.
2. The circumstances relied on by the applicant have been articulated in some detail earlier in these reasons. For instance, in her "Personal Statement-To the Department of Education" of 22 April 2025, she described her extreme and debilitating circumstances caused by grief, mental illness, and her financial situation, which rendered her unable to manage her enrolment or submit a timely remission application. The other circumstances described earlier in these reasons need not be repeated for this consideration, other than to acknowledge that they are also applicable and relevant to the question of whether special circumstances apply to the applicant within the meaning of subsection 97-30 (1) of the Act.
3. The Tribunal must determine whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicant were beyond her control.
4. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances relied upon by the applicant were beyond her control. There are several reasons for this.
5. Whilst it is clearly acknowledged that the applicant's mother's death was beyond her control, for reasons already explained the Tribunal has concluded notwithstanding the circumstances relied upon could have made an application for remission of the HECS-HELP debt prior to the expiration of the end of the relevant application periods. She did not make the application because she laboured under incorrect assumption that because she had not attended any classes her enrolment would be automatically withdrawn, and/or that because she had enrolled at the University of Melbourne for an Arts degree that would mean her enrolment at RMIT University would be automatically discontinued. The respondent in its submissions referred to a decision of Forer and Secretary, Department of Education which correctly held that where an applicant was unaware that they could be enrolled in two courses or degrees at once such circumstances are not beyond their control for the purposes of this section.[23]
6. The applicant's mother died in September 2020. She enrolled in the Units at RMIT University on 1 December 2021. It should also be repeated that it emerged from her evidence, as recounted above, she also enrolled at the University of Melbourne for an Arts degree majoring in anthropology in the first half of 2022 and attended for approximately two weeks. As described, it appears that she discontinued that course and obtained a remission of any HECS-HELP debt applicable to it within the relevant application period, if she needed to, as she has heard nothing further about that matter.
7. The medical and other evidence being from Dr Munoz and Mr Hands, insofar as it sheds light on her conditions, identifies those conditions or symptoms as affecting her between August and December 2021. Unfortunately, for the applicant this is prior to the applicable census dates of 31 March and 31 August 2022.
8. For these reasons, the Tribunal concludes that the relevant circumstances relied upon by the applicant were not beyond her control as contemplated by s 97-30 (1) (a) of the Act.
9. Although not strictly necessary for the purposes of resolving this application, the Tribunal will consider whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicant made their full impact on her on or after the census date.
10. The medical evidence has already been referred to. It did not record such conditions or symptoms complained of by the applicant as persisting after 31 December 2021. Dr Munoz , in her email of 25 June 2024, was unable to verify the time frame claimed by the applicant in which she experienced the conditions in the way that she said she did. Mr Hands stated in his email of 4 July 2024 stated it would be impossible to assess accurately the level of her incapacitation during the dates specified in the letter of request. Insofar as these conditions had an impact upon her, the medical evidence, such as it is, indicates that the full impact occurred well before the census date.
11. For these reasons, and as already explained, the Tribunal cannot conclude that the circumstances relied upon by the applicant did not make the full impact upon her until or after the relevant census dates as required by s 97-30 (1) (b) of the Act.
12. Finally, there is the question of whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicant made it impracticable for her to complete the requirements for the units in the period which she was to undertake them.
13. In assessing whether the circumstances relied upon by an applicant make it impracticable for them to complete the requirements of the units, reference should be made to several previous decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on this question. The respondent cited a decision of Nacol and Secretary, Department of Education, Skills and Employment.__[24] In that it was found that the applicant genuinely misunderstood and misinterpreted the applicable processes concerning the completion of her course. Nonetheless, the Tribunal considered that in terms of impracticality within the meaning of the Act, in complying with requirements, the onus is on an applicant, and in such circumstances notwithstanding that was a misunderstanding on their part that did not render it impractical for the applicant to comply with the course requirements. Forer and Secretary, Department of Education has already been referred to earlier in these reasons. There, the Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances made it impracticable for him to complete the requirements of the units concerned as he was unaware that he was still enrolled in the course and had not completed his timetable or attended any lectures or tutorials. It also noted from the established cases that the bar set by decision-makers for the inability of an applicant to complete units is very high indeed. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was impractical for the applicant to do so in that matter.
14. These decisions have application to this question. The reasons already referred to are repeated, and by reason of them, the Tribunal concludes that it was not impracticable for her to complete the requirements of the units.
15. The medical evidence which has already been canvassed in some detail is not established that the circumstances relied upon by the applicant made it impracticable for her to complete the requirements of the units.
16. Another matter relied upon by the respondent in this setting is, which has been touched on above, is that on 20 September 2022 the applicant wrote to RMIT University advising it that she was travelling overseas. Details of her overseas travel have already been referred to. The respondent contends, and the Tribunal agrees, that the applicant's ability to travel overseas, including making the relevant arrangements, including attending to such detailed matters as obtaining a visa to the United States of America, is inconsistent with her contentions that the relevant circumstances made it impracticable for her to complete the requirements of the Semester 1 and 2 Units.
17. Finally, with respect to this question the evidence that emerged in cross examination about her studying at the University of Melbourne and ultimately in some way discontinuing that course, is also inconsistent with any claims she has made that the circumstances concerned made it impracticable for her to complete the requirements of the units concerned at RMIT University.
18. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot conclude that the circumstances relied upon by the applicant made it impracticable for her to complete requirements for the units in which she was to undertake them as required by s 97-30 (1) (c) of the Act.
19. By reason of the foregoing matters the Tribunal concludes that the applicant has been unable to establish that special circumstances apply to her within the meaning of s 97-30 (1) of the Act.

1. For the reasons explained, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

[2] These units or subjects will hereinafter be collectively referred to as "the units".

[4] Reference should also be made to s 147 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) which addresses documents produced by processes, machines and other devices.

[7] The emails are part of document T 21.

[22] The T documents are replete with a significant number of email or electronic communications passing from RMIT University to the applicant both at her private "iCloud" email address and her RMIT email address. Examples referred to are documents T 19-T 20 and T 23-T 25.

[23] [2023] AATA 1271.

[24] [2022] AATA 1033.