An article featured on the front page of the SMH last weekend, outlines how a father, who couldn’t find any local legal representation, represented himself and successfully argued BCC's enrolment contract was unfair.  He argued the fact the school was able to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, such as fees without giving parents notice or an opportunity to withdraw their child without penalty fell under "unfair terms” under Australian Consumer Law (ACL).

The parent had withdrawn their children at the end of 2019 without giving a full terms notice as required by the contract. 

The school had argued consumer protection laws did not apply as the services were delivered to children, not the parent.  However Senior Member Ferguson stated she did not accept that logic affirming the language in Section 23(3) is sufficiently broad to include services a parent may acquire for the use of their children, sighting the example of school shoe purchase or orthodontic services as falling under the protections of Section 23 of ACL.

After months of deliberation, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) dismissed BCC's application on 5 May finding that the enrolment contract was a standard form contract and the end of year notice term was unfair and therefore voided. 

The Tribunal judgement makes it clear that we (parents) are bonafide service recipients with clear rights and protections under Australian Consumer Law and immediately lights the way for parents in similar circumstances to pursue similar just outcomes.

The issue was also covered by the Riotact - https://the-riotact.com/brindabella-christian-college-enrolment-contract-ruled-unfair-by-acat/557375