..........................[SGND]........................................

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - cancellation of Registered Training Organisation - application for dismissal - failure to attend case event - failure to progress review - application dismissed

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ss 9, 56 100

1. On 16 May 2025, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (Respondent) decided to cancel the Applicant's registration as a vocational education and training provider effective from 17 May 2025 (the Decision).
2. On 4 June 2025, the Applicant filed an application in the Tribunal seeking a review of the Decision. In the application, the contact person for the Applicant was listed as the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Mamoon Ahmed Mohamed (Mr Mohammed). The application form indicated that at that time, the Applicant was not represented. A mobile phone number and email address for Mr Mohammed was included in the application form.
3. The matter was listed for a conference before a Registrar on 26 August 2025. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Applicant. The Registrar requested that the parties confer and provide the Tribunal with a set of proposed directions within 7 days. A conference was scheduled for 10 September 2025.
4. On 3 September 2025, the Tribunal sent an email to the parties requesting an update. On 4 September 2025, the Respondent's representative sent an email to the Registry (copied to Mr Mohammed) in which they explained they had attempted to contact the Applicant by email on four occasions but did not receive any reply. The representative had also attempted to make contact by telephone on 2 September 2025, but the mobile phone number appeared be disconnected.
5. The Respondent requested the Tribunal list the matter for directions to discuss an appropriate timetable to progress the review. The Respondent also specifically foreshadowed that if there was no appearance for the Applicant at the next case event, the Respondent would apply for the proceedings to be dismissed.
6. On the dame date, Mr Mohamed sent an email to the Registry (copied to the Respondent)(September Email). In the September Email he advised as follows:

Sorry for my delay response. Currently I am travelling overseas and have limited access.

I need time to review the evidence Mr Duldig sent us and prepare our response accordingly. Hence, I need an extension till 31 October 2025 to submit my evidence.

Please grant my extension and allow me to submit all the related documents.

1. On 8 September 2025, the Tribunal vacated the conference listed for 10 September 2025 and relisted it for 19 November 2025. Listing notices were sent to the parties.
2. No evidence was filed by the Applicant on or before 31 October 2025.
3. On 13 November 2025, the Respondent sent an email to the Applicant in the following terms:

We refer to the case conference on 19 November 2025 and your email dated 4 September 2025 in which you indicated that you require until 31 October 2025 to provide further evidence in support of your application for review.

We note that we have not received any further materials from the Applicant to date. We would be grateful if you could please confirm whether the Applicant intends to continue with the Tribunal application and if so, when the Applicant intends to file further evidence.

In relation to a timetable for progressing this matter, we propose that the Respondent has a minimum of 8 weeks from the date the Applicant's evidence is received to prepare its evidence. We seek your views on the below timetable:

1. On or before [insert date, e.g. 2 weeks from today] the Applicant is to provide any further evidence they intend to rely on;

2. On or before [8 weeks after the date the Applicant files evidence], the Respondent is to provide any further evidence they intend to rely on;

3. The matter is listed for a case conference on a date at least one week after the Respondent files their evidence.

Please note also that if there is no appearance for the Applicant at the directions hearing on 19 November 2025, the Respondent intends to apply for the proceedings to be dismissed pursuant to s 99 of the ART Act.

1. The Respondent did not receive a response to that email.
2. On 19 November 2025, the second case conference was held. There was no attendance on behalf of the Applicant. The attempts made by the Registrar to contact the mobile phone provided by the Applicant were unsuccessful.
3. At the request of the Respondent, the matter was referred to a non-compliance directions hearing which was scheduled for 5 December 2025. Listing notices were sent to the parties.
4. On 26 November 2025, the Respondent filed with the Registry and served on the Applicant submissions in support for an application seeking dismissal of the review.
5. On 3 December 2025, the Registry sent an email to the parties in anticipation of the 5 December 2025 hearing, requesting confirmation of contact details for the hearing. The Respondent provided a response on 4 December 2025. There was no response from the Applicant.
6. The non-compliance directions hearing was convened on 5 December 2025. Despite calling the mobile phone number provided on three separate occasions, the Tribunal was unable to establish contact with Mr Mohammed. On each occasion the call failed to connect.
7. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to 15 December 2025 for a further non-compliance hearing. An email in the following terms was sent to the parties:

We refer to the directions hearing which was listed for Friday 5 December 2025 at 2pm (AEDT).

The hearing was listed at the request of the Respondent as a result of the non-compliance by the Applicant with the most recent Tribunal directions.

We confirm that the Tribunal tried on three occasions to contact the Applicant's representative at the hearing time on the mobile telephone number provided on the application for review. On each occasion the call failed to connect.

The Member adjourned the application to a non-compliance directions hearing to be conducted by MS Teams on Friday 12 December 2025 at 2pm AEDT.

If the Applicant no longer intends to pursue the substantive application, we respectfully request the Tribunal be advised as soon as possible.

Should the Applicant fail to attend the next case event, the proceedings may be dismissed.

1. Although a listing notice was attached to the email from the Registry, it unfortunately included the incorrect hearing date. A further listing notice was sent to the parties on 11 December 2025 which confirmed the correct listing as 12 December 2025 (which was correctly recorded in the original email from the Registry, but not the notice attached).
2. There was no response to any of these emails from the Applicant.
3. The non-compliance hearing took place on 12 December 2025. There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Applicant. Mr Duldig appeared on behalf of the Respondent. He pressed the application for dismissal and relied on the written submissions.
4. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application at the non-compliance hearing and confirmed short written reasons would follow.
5. Section 100 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2004 (Cth) (ART Act) allows the Tribunal to dismiss an application if the Applicant fails to either proceed with an application or comply with the Act or an order of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding, in a reasonable time.
6. Section 9 of the ART Act sets out the Tribunal's objectives which includes that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly and with as little formality and expense and the proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits. To achieve this objective, it is important for the Tribunal to actively manage the progress of cases.
7. Section 56 of the ART Act requires that parties and their representatives conduct proceedings before the Tribunal in a manner that supports the Tribunal to achieve its objectives.
8. The Tribunal was satisfied the Applicant had failed to proceed with the application in a reasonable time having regard to:
   1. the failure to attend any of the scheduled case events;
   2. the failure to provide any current and reliable contact information for the Applicant, delaying and frustrating the scheduling of case events, directions and the progression of the review application more generally;
   3. the failure to explain the non-attendance at the conferences and directions hearings, or provision of evidence as proposed in the September Email; and
   4. the application for review has been on foot since June 2025, however sice that time the Applicant has failed to file any material in support of the application or make any attempt to engage with the Respondent or the Tribunal except for the September Email.
9. The Tribunal was also satisfied there was no prospect the Applicant would proceed with the matter in the near future and therefore an adjournment was of limited utility in circumstances where:
   1. Mr Mohammed, who was responsible for filing the application, is not contactable of the mobile phone number provided to the Tribunal and has not provided an alternative contact;
   2. except for the application for review and the September Email, there has been no contact with the Tribunal initiated by the Applicant;
   3. there has been no response from the Applicant to any communication from the Tribunal except for the September Email. The Listing Notices and emails sent by the Tribunal specifically warn the proceedings may be dismissed; and
   4. there had been no response from the Applicant to the communications from the Respondent, including emails which specifically advised of their intention to seek the proceeding be dismissed.
10. The Tribunal dismisses the application.