ARTA Case Law on HECS HELP Fee Remission: What the New Tribunal is Saying

Since October 2024, those disputes are now decided by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) rather than the AAT. A run of recent ART decisions shows a consistent – and quite strict – approach to:

• fee remission and HELP balance re‑credits

• what counts as “special circumstances”

• and how unforgiving the 12‑month time limit can be.

This post walks through key ART cases and extracts practical lessons for students, advocates and university decision‑makers.

⚠️ Important: This is academic discussion, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts and you should get individual advice before acting on anything here.

1. The legal framework: remission and re‑credit under HESA

Most of the ART cases are about two closely related regimes in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (HESA):

• Remission of HECS‑HELP debts for Commonwealth‑supported students (s 36‑20, s 36‑21).

• Re‑crediting of HELP balance (including HECS‑HELP and FEE‑HELP) (Div 97, especially s 97‑25 and s 97‑30).

The Tribunal repeatedly restates that:

• A HECS‑HELP debt is incurred immediately after the census date for the unit.

• The provider must remit / re‑credit if (and only if) all statutory criteria are met – including the “special circumstances” test and a valid application within the 12‑month “application period” (or a proper waiver of that period).

• “Special circumstances” require the decision‑maker to be satisfied that circumstances:

  1. were beyond the person’s control;

  2. did not make their full impact on the person until on or after the relevant census date; and

  3. made it impracticable (not just difficult) to complete the unit.

The Higher Education Support (Administration) Guidelines 2022 (Cth) are treated as part of this statutory scheme, not just “policy”. They govern what counts as:

• “beyond the student’s control”

• “full impact on or after census”

• “impracticable to complete”.

2. The 12‑month application period: an unforgiving gatekeeper

A strong theme across the ART cases is that you rarely get past the time limit unless it truly wasn’t possible to apply in time.

2.1 Ghali – general advice and long delay not enough

In Ghali and Secretary, Department of Education [2024] ARTA 282, the applicant tried to have HECS‑HELP debts from 2013 remitted more than a decade later, arguing she thought she had followed advice from a university student centre and only discovered the debt years afterwards.

The Tribunal:

• Treated the 12‑month application period (s 36‑22) as a hard limit.

• Confirmed the waiver test – that it “would not be, or was not, possible” to apply in time – sets a very high bar, drawing on earlier AAT authority like Brown, CNPG and Forer.

• Held that generic advice from a student centre, misunderstanding processes, or not checking your own enrolment do not make it “not possible” to apply in time.

Even before getting to “special circumstances”, the case failed on timing.

2.2 RWHG – extreme hardship, but still “possible” to apply

In RWHG and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1119, a humanitarian entrant caring for his unwell mother and siblings, dealing with housing issues, financial hardship and a broken computer, sought re‑credit of units from 2022.

The Tribunal accepted he was under intense pressure, but held:

• The 12‑month period ran from shortly after the exam period.

• He did lodge a re‑credit form for one unit within time, demonstrating that, objectively, it was “possible” to apply for the others as well.

• Confusion about the process, lack of documentation and competing priorities did not amount to an incapacity to act.

Result: no waiver of the application period, so no re‑credit for the 2022 units – even though the Tribunal indicated genuine sympathy and accepted he had faced “significant challenges”.

2.3 Mitchinson and XLLK – time limits for older study

Both Mitchinson and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 2178 and XLLK and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1300 involved attempts to re‑credit HELP entitlements related to older study where:

• No withdrawal occurred at the time, and

• No re‑credit application was made within the 12‑month period.

Again, the ART:

• Emphasised that “possible” is not the same as “convenient” or “likely to succeed”.

• Looked for some serious barrier (such as lack of legal or mental capacity) and did not find it.

Takeaway: If you are outside the 12‑month window, you need to show more than stress, busyness, confusion or bad assumptions. The Tribunal is looking for something close to actual incapacity, not just difficult circumstances.

3. What counts as “special circumstances”? Carers, mental health and violence

Where the time limit is met or waived, the focus shifts to the three‑limb “special circumstances” test.

3.1 CVQY – carers, mental health and family violence, but thin evidence

In CVQY and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1710, the applicant sought remission of HECS‑HELP debts for five RMIT units, relying on:

• caring responsibilities for her mother

• workplace pressures

• anxiety, depression and stress

• an abusive relationship.

The Tribunal accepted these types of issues can fall within the scope of “family/personal circumstances” and mental health contemplated by the Guidelines, but ultimately found:

• The medical and psychological evidence was limited and high‑level, and

• There was insufficient linkage between those problems and her inability to meet specific academic requirements for each unit.

Result: no special circumstances established.

3.2 Tomkins – caring for a parent and the census date nuance

In Tomkins and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1346, a mature‑age vet science student sought remission of HECS‑HELP debt for two units after years of intensive caring for her 95‑year‑old mother with dementia, multiple hospitalisations and COVID, alongside disruptions from COVID‑era study.

Key points:

• The Tribunal accepted her caring responsibilities and her mother’s rapid deterioration were “special circumstances” in the ordinary sense and outside her control.

• However, it drew a sharp distinction between what existed before census and what worsened after census: only the later escalation could potentially satisfy the “full impact on or after census date” limb for the second unit.

• The Tribunal reiterated that all three limbs of s 97‑30 must be met for each unit, and that analysis is unit‑specific, not course‑wide.

Despite real sympathy, the Tribunal ultimately affirmed the university’s decision because one or more limbs weren’t made out for each unit.

3.3 RWHG – complex family hardship, but “impracticable” still a high bar

In RWHG, the ART accepted that the applicant’s combination of:

• humanitarian resettlement

• responsibility for his mother’s medical care and younger siblings

• rental stress and loss of hot water for a month

• and lack of a workable computer

was “beyond his control” and “unusual, uncommon or abnormal” for the purposes of the Guidelines.

However, the Member indicated that, had timing not been fatal, it would still have been difficult to conclude that his circumstances made it impracticable (as opposed to very difficult) to complete each of the 2022 subjects, given he:

• engaged with the university around deferrals and special consideration

• continued to attempt study

• and there was limited evidence quantifying exactly how the domestic burdens blocked specific assessment tasks.

Takeaway: Recent ART decisions show real willingness to accept the seriousness of carers’ duties, mental health issues and family violence – but the Tribunal still demands:

• clear, contemporaneous evidence, and

• a tight causal link between those circumstances and the requirements of each unit.

4. “Full impact on or after census date”: timing really matters

The second limb – that circumstances “do not make their full impact” until on or after census – is where many cases fail.

4.1 O’Loughlin – double enrolment and ignored emails

In O’Loughlin and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 1416, the applicant accepted a place in a Bachelor of Medical Science at UTS, then later accepted a similar place at the University of Sydney but never withdrew from UTS.

She argued that juggling the two offers, life changes and confusion over enrolment meant special circumstances existed. The Tribunal noted that:

• She received multiple UTS emails before census warning she would be financially liable for units she remained enrolled in.

• Her choice to accept another offer without formally withdrawing from UTS occurred before the census date.

Result: any difficulties with competing enrolments made their full impact before census, so the second limb of s 36‑21 / s 97‑30 was not satisfied.

4.2 Zhong – multiple chances to sit the exam

In Zhong and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 2314, the applicant failed a statistics unit at UNSW after:

• missing the original final exam,

• being granted special consideration and two further supplementary exams,

• then missing both of those and a later audit‑only exam scheduled for the same unit.

He relied on a head injury and medical issues. The Tribunal:

• Accepted that injuries can be relevant circumstances, but

• Put weight on the fact that he received a High Distinction in another unit during the same period, and

• Emphasised that, despite repeated extensions, he did not attend any of the rescheduled exams.

On those facts, the Tribunal was not satisfied that his circumstances, even if difficult, made it impracticable for him to complete – nor that the “full impact” test was met for the numerous chances he had to sit an exam.

Takeaway: If problems are already operating before census, or a student continues to perform well in other units, the ART is likely to find that the “full impact” limb is not met, even where life is genuinely chaotic.

5. Jurisdiction and process: Paloma‑Hernandez as a warning

In Paloma‑Hernandez and Secretary, Department of Education [2025] ARTA 2019, the Tribunal largely dealt with jurisdiction, not the merits.

Key points:

• The applicant had made multiple FEE‑HELP re‑credit requests over several years for different courses and trimesters.

• Only one of those decisions (a reconsideration of an earlier refusal) had gone through the full internal review process required under HESA.

• The ART held it only had jurisdiction to review that one reconsideration decision; the rest were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Takeaway:

• An ART review is only available where there is a “reviewable decision” that has already been through the correct internal reconsideration step under HESA.

• Students and advocates must be very clear about which exact decision they’re challenging, and make sure the provider has actually made the required internal review decision first.

6. Practical lessons for students and support services

Pulling the threads together from Ghali, RWHG, O’Loughlin, Zhong, CVQY, Tomkins, Mitchinson, XLLK and Paloma‑Hernandez, a consistent picture emerges:

6.1 Act early – the 12‑month clock is brutal

• Diarise the 12‑month deadline from the end of the teaching or exam period.

• If something serious has happened, submit an application even if your evidence is incomplete – you can often supplement later.

• Do not assume “I didn’t know about the debt” or “the process confused me” will justify a waiver.

6.2 Build a clear evidence trail

For each unit you’re asking to remit or re‑credit:

• Line up timelines: census date, onset or escalation of illness, caring duties, violence, work changes, exam dates.

• Gather medical reports, psychological notes, hospital discharge summaries, intervention orders, tenancy and employment records, and ensure they reference dates that match your academic timeline.

• Ask health practitioners to address explicitly:

  • how your condition affected concentration, attendance and assessment; and

  • why it was impracticable, not just “difficult”, to continue.

6.3 Link circumstances to each unit

The ART treats the test as unit‑by‑unit:

• Explain what happened during that specific teaching period,

• which assessments or classes you missed, and

• how your circumstances stopped you from meeting those requirements.

Generic statements like “I was very stressed all year” rarely succeed.

6.4 Read every email and manage enrolment carefully

Cases like O’Loughlin and Ghali show the Tribunal expects students to:

• read census‑date reminders and fee warnings

• manage withdrawals when changing institutions

• and follow up if something seems wrong.

Ignoring emails, assuming a course will “just drop off”, or relying on casual hallway advice from staff is extremely risky.

Academic discussion – not legal advice

This article is written for academic and educational purposes only. It summarises and interprets case law in general terms and does not constitute legal advice.

If you are considering a fee remission or HELP re‑credit application, Contact Us.