The Rule organises appeals around several discrete legal and administrative concepts. The text defines and operationalises each; these are the principal concepts practitioners must map to factual scenarios.

• Reviewable decision. A “reviewable decision” under the instrument is only what the Rule says it is: either a discipline decision declared reviewable in the Discipline Rule or an academic integrity decision declared reviewable in the Academic Integrity Rule (ss 5-7). The instrument therefore functions as an overlay procedural framework; the substantive scope is determined by two separate rules.

• Grounds for review. A student’s application must be made on one or more enumerated grounds: procedural irregularity that may have affected the decision, bias of the decision-maker, manifestly wrong decision, mistaken application of University legislation, substantial relevant evidence not taken into account that could not have been known earlier, or penalty/action manifestly excessive (s 8). Subsection (2) clarifies that where ground (f) (manifestly excessive penalty/action) is pleaded, the penalty or action forms part of the decision for the purposes of this instrument (s 8(2)).

• Administrative gatekeeping. The Registrar is given screening authority to reject applications that appear non-reviewable, not on permitted grounds, or out of time, but the Registrar must offer the applicant an opportunity to respond in writing before rejection and must give written reasons for any rejection (s 10). If not rejected the Registrar must refer to an Appeals Committee (s 11).

• Appeals Panel and Appeals Committee. The Appeals Panel is a standing pool (s 12). Each review is heard by an Appeals Committee appointed from that Panel, with a minimum composition (4 Panel members including a student member and three academic-function members) and a Chair and Secretary appointed by the Registrar (s 13). A quorum is three members including the Chair (s 13(9)).

• Procedural flexibility coupled with fairness. The Committee is expressly “bound by the rules of procedural fairness but is not bound by rules of evidence” (s 19(1)(b)(ii)). The Chair controls whether there is an oral hearing (s 17) and may permit or require remote participation (s 21). The Committee is empowered to inform itself “in any way it considers appropriate” (s 19(1)(b)(i)), and to accept new material and either assess it on the papers or refer back for remaking (s 14).

• Finality and remedy constraints. The Appeals Committee’s decision is explicitely final under the instrument (s 25). The Committee’s power to vary or substitute a decision is constrained by s 23(3): any variation or substituted decision must be one the original decision-maker could have made.

• Timelines and notice. Key time limits appear throughout: student application within 20 working days of written notification and statement of reasons (s 9(2)(d)); Registrar to provide notices and give statements of reasons on rejection (s 10(3)); Secretary must give the student material intended to be relied on no later than five working days before the hearing (s 15); notice of hearing at least five working days (s 16); the Appeals Committee must give decision and reasons within 10 working days of decision (s 23(8)).

• Interaction with other instruments. The Rule includes a carve-out for joint, double or dual programs where an agreement with another institution governs (s 26). Transitional savings preserve earlier rules for certain pre-existing conduct (s 30), and the Rule is subject to transitional orders (s 31) and the Legislation Statute regime (ss 32-33).

These main concepts set the legal architecture: a constrained scope (as determined by other rules), specific grounds for review, administrative front-end screening, small-panel institutional adjudication with procedural flexibility, and internal finality. The operational impact of each concept is handled next: who is affected, what choices they must make, and what the instrument’s mechanisms incentivise.

The instrument identifies and affects a small set of distinct actors and interests. The text makes it possible to map who pays time and attention, who decides, and who bears the operational burdens.

• Students (current, past and applicants). “Student” is defined broadly: any person who is or was enrolled in, seeking enrolment in, or given permission to audit a program or course offered by the University (s 4). The Rule imposes compliance duties and time costs on students who wish to seek review: preparing a written application specifying statutory grounds and reasons, providing any supporting material, and doing so within 20 working days of written notification and statement of reasons under the relevant rule (s 9(1)-(2)). Students who fail to appear at a hearing in person, to be represented or to make a written submission risk the review being taken as final immediately and the original decision taking effect (s 22). Students also bear the practical cost of meeting disclosure timelines (5 working days for material, s 15) and of complying with undertakings accepted by the Committee (s 24).

• The Registrar and the University administration. The Registrar is given significant administrative powers and functions: to receive applications, to screen and potentially reject applications (s 10), to refer valid applications to an Appeals Committee (s 11), to appoint Appeals Committees and Chairs and Secretaries (s 13(2), (5)-(6)), and to appear in hearings in person or through an advocate with the Chair’s approval (s 19(2)(a)). The Registrar must give written notice, statements of reasons, and reasons for rejection (s 10(3), s 23(8)). The Registrar also holds discretion to extend time limits, subject to statutory criteria (s 28).

• Appeals Panel members and Appeals Committee members. The Academic Board appoints an Appeals Panel comprising at least six student members and at least six non-student members with academic/arts experience (s 12). Members serve two-year terms and may be reappointed (s 12(3)). For each review the Registrar appoints an Appeals Committee from the Panel; the Committee must include at least one student member alongside three academic-function Panel members and a Chair (s 13(3)-(6)). Members incur adjudicative workload, must respect procedural fairness but are not bound by rules of evidence (s 19(1)(b)(ii)), and must avoid conflicts such as being the original decision-maker (s 13(4), s 27).

• Student association and nominated observers. Before hearing the student may tell the President of the student association about the hearing (s 16(1)); the student may be accompanied by a person nominated by the student, who can observe and, with the Chair’s express approval, act as advocate (s 20(2)). The Chair must adjourn if an advocate is approved and the Registrar is not present, to allow the Registrar to appear (s 20(3)). The student association thus has a peripheral role in representation and advocacy.

• Witnesses and third parties. The Committee can hear witnesses and accept new material (s 14, s 19(2)(b)). Attendance at hearings is limited by default to specified persons, including witnesses called to give evidence (s 19(4)). Third institutions may be relevant where joint program agreements apply and their agreement can take precedence over parts of this instrument (s 26).

• Original decision-maker. The original decision-maker is explicitly disqualified from exercising certain functions in relation to a review of their own decision (s 27). They cannot personally exercise functions under s 10 (Registrar may reject), s 11 (refer valid applications), s 13 (Appeals Committee, i.e., be on it), s 19 (hearing procedure), s 20 (student’s rights on review), or s 28 (extension of time).

• University governance bodies. Academic Board appoints the Appeals Panel (s 12). The Governance Statute provides enabling authority (s 3) and transitional orders may be made under s 68(1) (s 31).

Incentives and burdens: students are incentivised to lodge succinct, grounded applications within a firm time window and to present new evidence only where it could not reasonably have been known earlier (s 8(1)(e)). The Registrar has gatekeeping and administrative workload and discretion (s 10, s 11, s 13). Appeals Committee members must balance prompt decision-making with procedural fairness in an environment not constrained by strict evidentiary rules (s 19). For joint programs the Rule yields to express agreements, reducing the University’s unilateral control in those circumstances (s 26).

The instrument creates specified duties for administrators and rights for applicants and decision-makers. These are framed as procedural entitlements and constrained powers; obligations and rights are linked to timeframes and form.

Student duties and rights

• Duty to apply in writing on prescribed grounds and within timeframe. A student may apply for review only if the decision affects them in their capacity as a student (s 9(1)). The application must be in writing, specify grounds under s 8, include reasons, and be given to the Registrar within 20 working days after the student is told in writing of the decision and given a statement of reasons under the relevant rule (s 9(2)).

• Right to have materials provided. The Secretary must provide the student with a copy of the material the Appeals Committee intends to rely on no later than five working days before the hearing (s 15). The Appeals Committee must take into account submissions by the student (s 19(1)(b)(iii)).

• Rights at hearing. The student may appear personally, call and question witnesses, and make oral or written submissions (s 20(1)). The student may be accompanied by a nominated person who may observe and, with the Chair’s express approval, act as advocate (s 20(2)). If the Chair grants such approval and the Registrar is not present, the Chair must adjourn to enable the Registrar to appear (s 20(3)).

• Remote participation rights. The Chair may permit or require participation remotely; where permitted or required the Chair must endeavour to enable participation to the same extent as if present, and remote participation counts as appearance (s 21(1), (3), (4)).

Registrar duties and rights

• Gatekeeping duty with procedural protections. The Registrar may reject applications for specified reasons (s 10(1)) but must allow the applicant an opportunity to make a written submission about the proposed rejection (s 10(2)). If an application is rejected the Registrar must notify the applicant and the original decision-maker and give written reasons as soon as practicable (s 10(3)).

• Referral duty. If the Registrar does not reject the application, they must refer it to an Appeals Committee (s 11).

• Appointment and participation. The Registrar must appoint an Appeals Committee and appoint the Chair and Secretary (s 13(2), (5)-(6)). The Registrar may appear in hearings, or through an advocate with Chair approval, call and question witnesses, and make submissions (s 19(2)).

Appeals Committee duties and rights

• Composition and quorum. The Committee must include at least four members from the Appeals Panel, including the student member and three academic-function members, have a Chair and a Secretary (s 13(2)-(6)), and hold a quorum of three members including the Chair (s 13(9)).

• Procedural powers balanced with fairness. The Committee may determine procedure, inform itself in any way, is bound by procedural fairness but not by rules of evidence (s 19(1)). The Chair decides whether to hold an oral hearing (s 17).

• Decision powers and constraints. After considering the review, the Committee may confirm, vary, set aside, or substitute decisions (s 23(1)). Any variation or substitution must be a decision the original decision-maker could have made (s 23(3)). For academic-integrity and discipline penalty questions, the Committee must take into account a specified non-exhaustive list of matters including nature and severity, harm caused, and objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation (s 23(4)-(7)).

• Record-keeping and reasons. The Committee’s decision and reasons must be given in writing to the student and the Registrar within 10 working days after the decision (s 23(8)).

Other duties

• Secretary’s duty to disclose material timely. The Secretary must give the student the material the Committee intends to rely on no later than five working days before the hearing (s 15).

• Original decision-maker restrictions. A person who made the reviewable decision must not personally exercise key functions in relation to the review (s 27).

• Registrar’s extension power. The Registrar may extend time limits, including after they have ended, considering reason for extension, period, and prejudice, and for no longer than reasonably necessary (s 28).

These duties and rights create a structured but administratively concentrated regime. The student has a set of procedural rights in respect of notice, access to materials and participation; the administration has duties to screen, appoint and provide reasons; the Committee has wide fact-finding powers but is constrained by procedural fairness and by the boundaries of what the original decision-maker could have done.

The instrument itself does not create criminal sanctions or monetary penalties. Its enforcement is procedural: it prescribes remedies and administrative consequences for decisions under the Academic Integrity Rule and the Discipline Rule. The text sets out the mechanisms by which penalties imposed under those rules may be reviewed and modified.

• Scope of review of penalties. The grounds for review include that a penalty or other action was manifestly excessive (s 8(1)(f)). If that ground is asserted, the penalty or action is treated as part of the decision for the purposes of review (s 8(2)). Where an application concerns only penalty or other action, the Appeals Committee must consider only that question (s 18).

• Decision powers in relation to penalties. The Appeals Committee may confirm, vary, set aside, or substitute decisions (s 23(1)). When varying or substituting a penalty, the Committee is limited to decisions the original decision-maker could have made (s 23(3)). In deciding on penalties under the Academic Integrity Rule and the Discipline Rule the Committee must take into account particular factors, including nature and severity, harm, objectives of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation, and health and safety concerns (s 23(4)-(7)).

• Undertakings and breach. The Committee may accept undertakings from a student (s 23(2)(a)). If an accepted undertaking is later breached, the Committee may revoke its earlier decision and make any decision it could have made under s 23(1), taking the breach and any explanation into account (s 24).

• Procedural enforcement. The Rule enforces procedural obligations by timing and disclosure requirements: applications must meet the 20 working day deadline and set out grounds; failure to appear or make submissions when required leads, where the student does not appear, is not represented and has not made a written submission, to immediate finalisation of the review with the original decision taking effect (s 22).

• Finality. The instrument states that the Appeals Committee’s decision is final (s 25). The Rule does not itself address external enforcement avenues such as judicial review, external tribunals, or complaints to other bodies; it frames internal administrative finality.

• Effect on original decisions and remaking. If new material is provided to the Committee that was not before the original decision-maker, the Committee may assess it on the papers and, if it finds the information cogent and substantial, refer the decision back to the original decision-maker to remake the decision (s 14). A remade decision stands in place of the original and may itself be the subject of another application if reviewable (s 14(3)).

In practice, penalties imposed under the Academic Integrity Rule or Discipline Rule are enforceable through internal mechanisms: the Committee can adjust those penalties but only within the original decision-maker’s power and subject to non-exhaustive sentencing-type considerations (ss 18, 23). Breach of undertakings permits reinstatement or fresh decision-making. The instrument’s enforcement is therefore administrative and corrective rather than penal in the criminal or civil enforcement sense.

The Rule is explicitly framed as part of the University’s legislative architecture and interacts with other University instruments and agreements; the text also contains transitional and supremacy-type provisions. The instrument’s express interactions are the principal points to note.

• Dependent scope: Academic Integrity Rule and Discipline Rule. The Rule’s substantive jurisdiction is derivative: a “reviewable decision” is either a discipline decision declared reviewable in the Discipline Rule or an academic integrity decision declared reviewable in the Academic Integrity Rule (ss 5-7). The Rule therefore operates as a procedural overlay that applies only when those underpinning rules declare a particular decision reviewable.

• Governance Statute authority. The instrument is made under the Governance Statute 2023, s 68(1) (General power to make rules and orders) (s 3). That statute supplies enabling authority and may contain additional definitions and cross-references relevant to this instrument, as noted by the Rule’s cross-reference to the Legislation Statute dictionary for university-wide definitions (s 4 note).

• Legislation Statute and transitional repeals. The Rule repeals the Appeals Rule 2021 (s 29) and provides transitional savings for conduct prior to or subject to prior rules (Div 7.2, especially s 30). It expressly invokes the Legislation Statute, s 26 (Repeal of University legislation) in relation to repeal (s 32). Orders may be made under Governance Statute s 68(1) for transitional purposes (s 31), and those orders have effect despite anything in the instrument (s 31(3)).

• Contractual agreements for joint programs. The Rule gives way to agreements with other universities or institutions governing joint, double or dual programs (including cotutelle) to the extent of inconsistency (s 26(1)). A provision of this instrument has no effect insofar as inconsistent with such an agreement; parties may have greater or different procedural arrangements in those agreements, and the instrument acknowledges concurrency where possible (s 26(2)).

• Procedural statutes and service. The Rule directs readers to other statutory provisions for definitions and service mechanics. For example, it notes that definitions applying to University legislation are in the Legislation Statute’s dictionary and that service of notices is governed by Legislation Statute s 24 (s 4 note, s 10(3) note, s 16 note, s 23(8) note). The Rule does not redistribute legal rights outside the University framework.

• Interaction with delegation rules and Acts Interpretation Act. The Registrar may delegate appearance and other functions (s 19(2) note referring to Governance Statute s 67), and functions exercised by delegates are taken to have been exercised by the Registrar per the Acts Interpretation Act (s 19(2) note referencing Acts Interpretation Act s 34AB(1)(c)). The instrument therefore sits within a wider delegation and interpretation framework.

• Finality versus external law. The Rule states that the Appeals Committee decision is final (s 25). The instrument does not address or limit rights under external law (for example judicial review), nor does it purport to constrain other statutory or common law remedies. The instrument’s explicit “finality” is internal to the University’s administrative framework; the text contains no express abrogation of external forums.

• Consistency and concurrent operation. Section 26(2) clarifies that a provision of this instrument is not inconsistent with an agreement for joint programs to the extent both can operate concurrently. This allows parallel application where possible and indicates the Rule will not automatically displace contractual arrangements.

In short, this instrument is an internal procedural rule that relies on and defers to other University rules for substantive scope, acknowledges statutory delegation and service mechanisms, and yields to contractual agreements with partner institutions where inconsistent. Its interactions with external (non-University) legal remedies are not articulated in the text.

The instrument contains its own limited legislative history in the text; it is short and recent, and the Rule itself provides for repeal of its predecessor and for transitional arrangements. The Rule records the following changes or legal events within its text:

• Repeal of predecessor instrument. The Appeals Rule 2021 is expressly repealed by s 29.

• Transitional provisions preserving earlier rules. Division 7.2 provides transitional savings and application rules. Section 30 preserves application of earlier forms of academic integrity or misconduct rules for certain conduct (conduct before 1 December 2021 or certain conduct to which the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies), and makes clear that this instrument does not apply to that conduct (s 30(1)-(2)). Section 31 authorises transitional orders under the Governance Statute s 68(1) to prescribe transitional matters relating to the repeal and making of the instrument; such orders have effect despite anything in the instrument (s 31(3)). Sections 32 and 33 specify that the Legislation Statute s 26 applies and that this Division is additional to that statute and the Acts Interpretation Act (s 32-33).

• Commencement date and expiry. The instrument commences on the later of registration or 1 July 2023 (s 2). The instrument expires 10 years after its commencement (s 34).

• Status at signature. The instrument was made by the Vice-Chancellor (Professor Brian P. Schmidt) on 5 July 2023, as recorded at the front of the text.

No other amendments, schedules, or historical versions are recorded within this instrument. The Rule provides a mechanism for future transitional orders under s 31; those orders could, subject to proper exercise, amend transitional effects but the text does not itself amend other instruments beyond repealing the Appeals Rule 2021 and providing transitional savings.

The instrument’s text does not identify any litigation, judicial decisions, or case law concerning its operation. The Rule contains no citations to judicial authorities and names no cases. It is an administrative instrument establishing internal procedure; any litigation history must be sought outside the instrument itself.

Two relevant textual points for practitioners interested in potential disputes are:

• Internal finality. The Rule states the Appeals Committee decision is final (s 25). This is an internal finality statement; it does not address external judicial remedies. The text does not expressly restrict or comment on judicial review, merits review by external bodies, or other legal processes.

• Procedural fairness obligation. The Appeals Committee is “bound by the rules of procedural fairness” (s 19(1)(b)(ii)). As a matter of administrative law, a failure to observe procedural fairness can give rise to judicial review in the broader legal system. The instrument therefore creates an internal obligation that could, depending on the facts and external law, be a ground for external challenge if the Committee acting under the Rule failed to observe procedural fairness. The text itself does not discuss or circumscribe external legal remedies.

Because the Rule contains no litigation references, research into any litigation that has arisen under it must be conducted in external sources such as court records, tribunals or publicly available decisions. This instrument should be treated as the internal procedural backdrop; the presence of a written procedural-fairness obligation (s 19(1)(b)(ii)) flags where external review might be contemplated on ordinary administrative-law principles but the Rule itself includes no litigation record.

The Rule contains several operational traps and non-obvious constraints that cause procedural risk if overlooked. The following points are concrete, text-grounded practical pitfalls for students, representatives and administrators.

• Narrow, prescribed grounds for review. An application must be made on one or more statutory grounds listed at s 8 (procedural irregularity that may have affected the decision; bias; manifestly wrong; mistaken application of University legislation; substantial relevant evidence not taken into account that could not have been known earlier; manifestly excessive penalty or action). Applications that attempt to raise other grounds risk rejection under s 10(1)(b). The Registrar may reject applications that are not made on the required grounds, but must give the applicant an opportunity to make a written submission before rejection (s 10(2)).

• Strict time limit and trigger. The 20 working day clock runs from the day the student is told in writing about the decision and is given a statement of reasons under the relevant rule (s 9(2)(d)). If students misunderstand when the clock starts (for example if they were orally told earlier or if reasons were provided in a different form), they risk late applications. The Registrar may extend time limits (s 28) but only after considering the reason for the extension, the period, and prejudice, and for no longer than reasonably necessary (s 28(2)-(3).

• Original decision-maker exclusion. The person who made the reviewable decision must not personally exercise several key functions in relation to the review (s 27). If administrative design inadvertently permits the original decision-maker to participate, that could be a procedural fault.

• Material late and new evidence constraints. The ground based on new evidence requires that the evidence was not taken into account by the decision-maker and could not have been known to the student and provided earlier (s 8(1)(e)). This is a substantive threshold: evidence known to the student earlier but not produced will not meet the ground. New material provided to the Committee may be dealt with on the papers or referred back to the original decision-maker; a remade decision can itself be re-reviewed if reviewable (s 14).

• Limited scope where only penalty is challenged. If the application relates only to penalty or other action, the Appeals Committee must consider only that question (s 18). Applicants should distinguish between challenging the finding itself and challenging only the penalty as this affects the scope of review.

• Finality within the University. The Appeals Committee decision is final under the instrument (s 25). An applicant therefore cannot expect an internal further merits appeal under this instrument. The instrument does not speak to external remedies, but internal finality creates a strong administrative endpoint.

• Procedural default consequences. If the student does not appear in person, is not otherwise represented, and does not make a written submission, the review is taken to have been finalised immediately after the hearing and the original decision takes effect unless it has already taken effect (s 22). Passive non-participation can terminate review opportunities.

• Disclosure and short notice. Material the Committee intends to rely upon must be provided to the student no later than five working days before the hearing (s 15), and notice of the hearing must be not less than five working days (s 16). Tight compliance schedules for disclosure and hearing notice can impose burdens on students and administrators; missing these timelines could raise procedural fairness concerns.

• Chair controls hearing format. The Chair decides whether there will be an oral hearing and how the review is conducted (s 17). The Chair may permit or require remote participation (s 21). Parties can be disadvantaged if the Chair’s directions limit effective participation, though the Committee remains bound by procedural fairness (s 19(1)(b)(ii)).

• Non-statutory representation constraints. The student’s nominated companion may act as an advocate only with the Chair’s express approval (s 20(2)(b)). If the Chair approves the student’s advocate while the Registrar is not present, the Chair must adjourn to allow Registrar appearance (s 20(3)). This provision can cause adjournments and scheduling complexity.

• Composition and quorum practicalities. Appeals Committee composition requires at least one student member and three academic-function members from the Panel; the quorum is three members including the Chair (s 13(3), (9)). If Panel membership is thin or members are unavailable, convening a compliant committee may be difficult.

• Joint program overrides. For students in joint, double or dual programs, parts of this instrument will have no effect to the extent inconsistent with an agreement with other institutions (s 26). Students and administrators must check partner-institution agreements before assuming this Rule applies in full.

• Undertaking consequences. If the Committee accepts an undertaking and the student later breaches it, the Committee may revoke its earlier decision and make any decision it could have made under s 23(1) (s 24). Accepting an undertaking therefore carries significant contingent risk for students.

These “gotchas” follow directly from the Rule’s text and impose substantive choices: students must be proactive and time-sensitive; administrators must respect screening and disclosure obligations; Chairs must manage hearings with attention to procedural fairness; and universities with joint-program arrangements must reconcile potentially conflicting instruments.

Practical, text-grounded compliance steps for students, administrators and panel members follow from the duties and timelines in the Rule. The list below maps the Rule’s provisions into concrete actions to reduce procedural risk.

For students (applicants)

1. Start the clock. Identify precisely when you were told in writing of the decision and when you received the statement of reasons under the Academic Integrity Rule or Discipline Rule. The 20 working day application period runs from that event (s 9(2)(d)).

2. Prepare a focused written application. The application must be in writing, specify at least one of the grounds in s 8, and include a statement setting out the student’s reasons in support of the grounds (s 9(2)(a)-(c)). Tailor the application to the statutory grounds. For claims based on new evidence (s 8(1)(e)), explicitly explain why the evidence could not have been known earlier.

3. Collate and time supporting material. Include any documents or witness statements as attachments where possible. Remember the Secretary must provide you with material the Appeals Committee intends to rely on at least five working days before the hearing (s 15); plan to review and, if necessary, seek an extension from the Registrar (s 28).

4. Seek assistance early. If you intend to be accompanied by a person who will act as advocate, seek the Chair’s approval early. Note that if the Chair approves an advocate and the Registrar is absent, the Chair must adjourn to allow the Registrar to appear (s 20(3)). Inform the President of the student association if you wish, as permitted by s 16(1).

5. Consider written submissions if unable to attend. If you cannot attend the hearing in person and do not obtain representation, make sure to lodge a written submission to avoid automatic finalisation under s 22.

6. If late, apply for extension promptly. The Registrar may extend time limits; in your extension application explain reasons for delay, the specific period sought and why prejudice will not result, as the Registrar must consider these factors (s 28(2)). Extensions must be no longer than reasonably necessary (s 28(3)).

For the Registrar and administrative staff

1. Record and document notices and reasons. Ensure the original decision letter and statement of reasons are provided in writing in a way that triggers the student’s 20 working day period (s 9(2)(d)). Maintain a service record as the Legislation Statute prescribes (notes at ss 10 and 16).

2. Screening with natural justice. If an application appears out of time, out of scope or not on permitted grounds, give the applicant an opportunity to make a written submission about proposed rejection before rejecting it (s 10(2)). Provide prompt written notice and reasons to both applicant and original decision-maker if rejecting (s 10(3)).

3. Appoint Appeals Committees from the Appeals Panel. Maintain an up-to-date Appeals Panel of at least six student and six academic-function members (s 12(2)). For each review, appoint an Appeals Committee including at least one student member and three academic-function members, a non-student Chair and a non-member Secretary (s 13(2)-(6)). Ensure original decision-makers are excluded from serving on Committees considering their own decisions (ss 13(4), 27).

4. Provide material in time. Ensure the Secretary provides the student with a copy of material the Committee intends to rely on no later than five working days before the hearing (s 15). Give not less than five working days written notice of the hearing date, time and place (s 16(2)(b)).

5. Manage representation logistics. If the Registrar intends to appear through an advocate, obtain the Chair’s express approval for the advocate (s 19(2)(a)). Where approvable, delegate appearance functions in line with the Governance Statute’s delegation rules (s 19(2) notes).

6. Apply extension criteria consistently. When extending time limits consider the reason for extension, the period requested and prejudice to parties, and document the decision and rationale in accordance with s 28.

For Appeals Committee Chairs and members

1. Chair’s procedural control. Decide early whether an oral hearing is required by reference to the factors in s 17(2) (timeliness, stress to parties, other relevant factors). Record reasons for proceeding with or without an oral hearing.

2. Ensure procedural fairness. Even though the Committee is not bound by rules of evidence, it is required to observe procedural fairness (s 19(1)(b)(ii)). Make procedural directions transparent and consistent.

3. Manage remote participation. If permitting or requiring remote participation, specify the communication method and arrangements in writing and endeavour to ensure remote participants can participate to the same extent as in-person participants (s 21(1), (3)).

4. Confidentiality and attendance. Enforce attendance limits at hearings as set out in s 19(4), and make explicit any departures or approvals under s 19(4) where appropriate.

5. Dealing with new material. If material not before the original decision-maker is presented, assess whether it is cogent, relevant and substantial on the papers; if so, consider referral back to the original decision-maker (s 14). If referring back, note that a remade decision stands in place of the original and may itself be reviewable (s 14(3)).

6. Reasons and timing. Prepare written decisions and reasons and ensure they are delivered to the student and the Registrar within 10 working days of the decision (s 23(8)). Where the Committee accepts an undertaking, produce and provide a written copy to the student and Registrar (s 24(2)).

For institutions handling joint-program students

1. Check partner agreements. Before applying the Rule to students in joint, double or dual programs, confirm whether an agreement with the partner institution contains inconsistent provisions; where inconsistency exists the Rule will have no effect to that extent (s 26(1)).

2. Where both provisions can operate concurrently do so. If the agreement and the Rule can operate concurrently the Rule is not automatically displaced (s 26(2)).

Across all actors

• Maintain records of service and timing. The Rule’s various time triggers and delivery obligations make contemporaneous record-keeping essential (see ss 9, 15, 16, 23 and the Legislation Statute references).

• Train staff and panel members in the specified grounds for review. Because admissibility turns on the statutory grounds in s 8 and the Registrar has screening power (s 10), familiarity with those grounds is crucial to avoid incorrect rejections or admissions.

Implementing the checklist above aligns administrative behaviour with the instrument’s procedural architecture and reduces the specific compliance risks the Rule creates.