King Eeducational Service Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (No 3) [2021] FCA 692

Federal Court of Australia

King Eeducational Service Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (No 3) [2021] FCA 692 File number(s): VID 30 of 2021

Judgment of: WHEELAHAN J

Date of judgment: 24 June 2021

Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which affirmed a decision of the Australian Skills Quality Authority to refuse to renew the applicant's registration under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) (ESOS Act) – where power to renew registration under s 10E(1) of the Act required the decision-maker's satisfaction that the applicant "is complying, or will comply" with statutory requirements under s 11(b) of the Act – where the Tribunal refused to renew the applicant's registration following a conclusion that it was not satisfied that the applicant "will comply" – whether the Tribunal, by asking whether the applicant "will comply" instead of "is complying", asked the wrong question and thereby erred – whether the phrase "is complying, or will comply" is to be construed conjunctively, disjunctively, or otherwise – in the context of the ESOS Act, phrase to be construed "is complying, or will comply" as appropriate – the Tribunal did not ask the wrong question and so did not err. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider the applicant's submission as to the possible imposition of a condition under s 10B of the ESOS Act upon renewal of registration – whether the Tribunal acted unreasonably in failing to consider the imposition of conditions under the ESOS Act analogous to those imposed on the applicant under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) – the Tribunal did consider the applicant's submission – in the circumstances the Tribunal was not required to consider the imposition of analogous conditions – the Tribunal did not err and did not act unreasonably.