Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2016
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ - [2016] QCAT 511

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ[2016] QCAT 511

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ[2016] QCAT 511

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2016] QCAT 511

PARTIES:

Queensland College of Teachers

(Applicant)

v

Teacher CXJ

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR167-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howard

DELIVERED ON:

30 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

  1. That the suspension of the teacher registration of Teacher CXJ continue.
  2. Other than to the parties to the proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information other than as contained in the de-identified, redacted version of the reasons for decision.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – suspension of teacher – where Queensland College of Teachers suspended the teacher’s registration on basis of its belief that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children – whether the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm – whether suspension should continue

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 7, s 49, s 53, s 54, s 55(1), s 55(2), s 55(5), s 55(6)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66(2)

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50, s 54

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575

M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69

Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170

Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GXM [2016] QCAT 441

Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Teacher CXJ is a registered teacher in Queensland. His/her teacher registration was suspended by the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) pursuant to s 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (QCT Act). The QCT has filed an application in the Tribunal seeking orders that the suspension of Teacher CXJ’s teacher registration continue.
  2. [2]
    Directions were made by QCAT inviting submissions from Teacher CXJ as to why s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. Teacher CXJ has provided submissions to the Tribunal, together with copies of health professional reports from a general medical practitioner (GP) and a psychologist. The teacher submits that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  3. [3]
    S/he also seeks a non-publication order pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). In effect, s/he seeks non-publication of the contents of documents produced by the QCT and the non-publication of information that may identify the student who is the subject of the allegations made. S/he submits that to achieve this, his/her own identity cannot be disclosed. Further, s/he submits that it would not be in the interests of the student’s mental health or reputation if s/he was identified, and that it would also be detrimental to his/her own recovery from depression, if the events, which s/he says occurred when s/he was suffering from severe depression, were made public.
  4. [4]
    The QCT submits that the suspension should continue. Whilst acknowledging the opinions contained in the health professional reports, it submits that the Tribunal could not presently be satisfied that Teacher CXJ does not represent an unacceptable risk of harm to children in the classroom. It outlines a number of, what it considers to be, deficiencies in the psychological report that Teacher CXJ has provided in support of his/her submissions. The QCT further submits that the Tribunal may consider that a more detailed psychological report is necessary to enable it to be satisfied whether or not s/he continues to represent a continued risk of harm to children.
  5. [5]
    The QCT does not oppose Teacher CXJ’s application for a non-publication order on the basis that the publication of his/her name may lead to the identification of the student and it may impact on his/her physical and mental health.
  6. [6]
    For reasons explained in the following paragraphs, I have concluded that the suspension of Teacher CXJ’s teacher registration must continue. Because of the time frames prescribed in the QCT Act, it appears that I am not at liberty to allow him/her additional time to provide any further health professional reports before making my decision.
  7. [7]
    That said, under s 55(6) of the QCT Act, Teacher CXJ may apply within 28 days of this notice to him/her, to QCAT for review of QCAT’s decision. It is open to him/her to provide additional material including further health professional reports for consideration in that further proceeding.

The relevant provisions in the QCT Act

  1. [8]
    In QCT v Teacher GXM,[1] (‘GXM’), I outlined provisions of the QCT Act that are relevant to QCAT’s determination following QCT’s application to it following a suspension of a teacher’s registration under s 49 of the QCT Act. In considering the provisions, I did not have, in that case, the benefit of submissions from QCT (nor the teacher’s legal representative) about the operation of the recently amended s 49. QCT has provided submissions in this proceeding.
  2. [9]
    As explained in GXM, s 49 and other relevant provisions were amended effective as at 8 September 2016. QCT may now suspend a teacher’s registration if it reasonably believes the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children and QCAT must now review the continuation of the suspension.
  3. [10]
    Section 49 of the QCT Act provides that the QCT may suspend an approved teacher’s registration if it reasonably believes the teacher poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The QCT must refer the issue of continuation of a suspension under s 49 to QCAT ‘for review.’[2] QCAT must decide whether to continue the suspension of an approved teacher under s 49.[3] In making its determination, QCAT must decide whether the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[4] QCAT must order that the suspension be ended if it is satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[5] It must decide to continue a s 49 suspension unless it is satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[6]
  4. [11]
    That said, despite the requirement for QCT to refer the issue of continuation of the suspension to QCAT ‘for review’, deciding whether to continue the suspension under s 49 is decided in QCAT’s original jurisdiction,[7] not its review jurisdiction.
  5. [12]
    However, there is also provision for a further ‘review’ by QCAT, on the application of the teacher, in s 55(6). This is a review of the decision by QCAT that ‘the teacher poses an unacceptable risk to children’.

Time frames

  1. [13]
    There are prescribed timeframes once a s 49 suspension has occurred.
  2. [14]
    Under s 50(1), the QCT must immediately give notice of the suspension[8] (and other specified matters)[9] to the teacher [10] and refer the continuation of it to QCAT for review.[11] The notice from QCT to the teacher must state that QCAT will review the continuation of the suspension.[12]
  3. [15]
    Immediately after QCAT receives a copy of the notice of suspension from the QCT,[13] QCAT must give the approved teacher a notice inviting the teacher to show why the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children within a stated time of no less than 28 days after QCAT’s notice is given.[14] After considering the submissions, QCAT must decide whether the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm,[15] not later than 14 days after either QCAT receives a submission from a teacher or the notice period ends.[16] If QCAT does not make a decision within the 14 day period, QCAT is taken to have made an order ending the suspension.[17]
  4. [16]
    If QCAT makes a decision that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk to children, the teacher may then apply within 28 days of receiving the decision notice from QCAT, to QCAT ‘for review’ of QCAT’s decision.[18]

What is an unacceptable risk of harm?

  1. [17]
    The phrase unacceptable risk of harm to children is not defined in the QCT  Act.
  2. [18]
    Similarly to the approach taken in GXM, QCT submits that the ordinary meaning of the term should be preferred having regard to the context of the term in the QCT Act and the purpose of the Act. Further, reliance is placed on the High Court’s approach in M v M,[19] to determining whether there is an unacceptable risk. QCT submits that it directs an assessment of the chance of the risk occurring and the magnitude of the potential harm if it did occur, requiring a balancing of the advantages and detriments. The QCT submits that the provision is protective, favouring the protection of children over the interests of the registered teacher.
  3. [19]
    As discussed in GXM, the objects of the QCT Act include upholding standards in the teaching profession;[20] maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession;[21] and the protection of the public,[22] which clearly includes the protection of students.
  4. [20]
    ‘Harm’ is broadly defined in the QCT Act [23] as follows:

7 Meaning of harm

  1. Harm, to a child, is any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing.
  2. It is immaterial how the harm is caused.
  3. Harm can be caused by—
  1. physical, psychological or emotional abuse or neglect; or
  2. sexual abuse or exploitation.
  1. Harm can be caused by—
  1. a single act, omission or circumstance; or
  2. a series or combination of acts, omissions or circumstances.
  1. [21]
    As observed in GXM, the High Court in M v M,[24] considered the degree of risk of sexual abuse which would justify a court in denying a parent access (as it was then called) to a child under the Family Law Act 1976 (Cth). In that case, the High Court determined that a court should not grant access if it would expose the child to an ‘unacceptable risk’ of sexual abuse occurring. It said as follows:[25]

Efforts to define with greater precision the magnitude of the risk which will justify a court in denying a parent access to a child have resulted in a variety of formulations. The degree of risk has been described as a “risk of serious harm”, “an element of risk” or “an appreciable risk”, a “real possibility”, a “real risk”, and an “unacceptable risk”http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/46.html - fn315.[26] This imposing array indicates that the courts are striving for a greater degree of definition than the subject is capable of yielding. In devising these tests the courts have endeavoured, in their efforts to protect the child's paramount interests, to achieve a balance between the risk of detriment to the child from sexual abuse and the possibility of benefit to the child from parental access. To achieve a proper balance, the test is best expressed by saying that a court will not grant custody or access to a parent if that custody or access would expose the child to an unacceptable risk of sexual abuse.

  1. [22]
    It would appear that, if the general approach of the High Court to  unacceptable risk is adopted, that in making the assessment about whether an identified risk of harm is unacceptable, there is a balance to be achieved  between the protection of students from harm (as defined in the QCT Act) by way of inappropriate conduct/behaviour of a teacher, against the potential and also serious detriment to a teacher whose career is placed on hold if the evidence of potential harm to children relied upon to suspend the teacher registration is subsequently discredited. Having regard to the objects of the QCT Act, I accept that the protective nature of the provision favours protection of students. That said, as discussed below, it must be supported by evidence, to the requisite standard.
  2. [23]
    As a matter of statutory construction, an identified risk of harm to a child must be of a significant nature (having regard to the definition in s 7(1) of the QCT Act), rather than of a minor nature. Further, the (degree of) risk of harm posed by the teacher must be an unacceptable risk.

The onus and standard of proof

  1. [24]
    It is well-established that the relevant standard of proof in in disciplinary proceedings is reasonable satisfaction on what is commonly referred to as the Briginshaw[27] standard. That is, this is civil litigation and the standard of proof is the on the balance of probabilities. In disciplinary proceedings, which are capable of resulting in serious consequences, reasonable satisfaction should not be lightly reached or on flimsy evidence. The onus of proof in establishing whether a disciplinary ground exists rests with the QCT.[28]
  2. [25]
    However, in circumstances that QCT has suspended a teacher under s 49, s 53(3) of the QCT Act provides that the Tribunal must decide to continue the suspension unless satisfied that the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The suspension must be ended if QCAT is satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children: s 55(2)(b).  Further, s 54 provides that once QCT applies to QCAT to review a s 49 suspension, QCAT must invite the teacher to show why the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.[29] In effect, this appears to be a requirement for the teacher to show cause.
  3. [26]
    Effectively, it appears that once the QCT has formed the reasonable belief that an unacceptable risk of harm to children exists and suspended the teacher’s registration, the teacher then bears the onus of proof to satisfy the Tribunal that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. Unless the teacher does so, based on appropriate evidence, the Tribunal must continue the suspension. Notwithstanding that I accept that the provision is a protective one, in the balancing of relevant factors, the evidence of an unacceptable risk must be established on the Briginshaw standard, such that the Tribunal is satisfied that there is an unacceptable likelihood of the identified risk of harm occurring. It would not be appropriate to reach this conclusion based on flimsy evidence.
  4. [27]
    As a corollary, it appears to me that in seeking to discharge the onus of establishing that he or she does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children, a teacher would not be successful on the basis of inexact or flimsy evidence.

The material filed by QCT

  1. [28]
    The QCT suspended Teacher CXJ’s teacher registration because it had concluded, amongst other things (paraphrasing from the notice of suspension), that:
  1. On dates unknown (between specified years), s/he engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Student A by hugging him/her on a number of occasions.
  1. Over a recent three month period, s/he failed to behave appropriately and maintain professional boundaries within the employee-student relationship by engaging in inappropriate familiarity through email conversations of a personal nature (including late evening and early morning after school hours, during school holidays and on weekends).
  1. These email exchanges included an email that s/he sent from his/her school email account to Student A’s school email account requesting the student’s personal email address, which s/he later provided to him/her, whereafter s/he continued to engage in inappropriate overly-familiar email conversations.
  1. On a specified date, when engaged in teaching activities engaged in inappropriate physical contact with the student.
  1. S/he composed and sent a number of emails from his/her private email account to the student’s private email account on specified recent dates. The content of the emails sent by him/her using this account included:
  1. Emails depicting pornographic images;
  2. sexually explicit and obscene language and representations that s/he desired to engage in sexual activities with Student A;
  3. a request that the student send explicit images to him/her.
  1. [29]
    In forming these conclusions QCT relied upon, and has filed in the Tribunal, copies of the following:
    1. Email exchanges between the teacher’s school email account and Student A’s school email account and Student A’s personal email account;
    2. Email exchanges between the teacher’s private email account and Student A’s personal email account;
    3. A transcript of interview with Student A;
    4. Records of interview with members of school staff.

Teacher CXJ’s submissions that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children

  1. [30]
    Teacher CXJ does not deny the substance of the allegations made.[30] However, s/he submits that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. His/her argument is that before, after, and at the time of the events, s/he was suffering from severe depression, although s/he did not realise it at the time. That said, s/he says that s/he knew that his/her emotions and behaviour were ‘not normal for’ him/her.[31]
  2. [31]
    Although s/he acknowledges that s/he continues to suffer from depression, s/he now says that it is ‘to a far lesser degree’.[32] S/he commenced counselling subsequent to the events and continues to engage in counselling because s/he wishes to ensure that ‘the healing is complete.’[33] S/he says that s/he now understands the triggers and signals of depression and knows what s/he needs to do to ensure that s/he does not become depressed again in the future. Because of this, s/he says s/he is confident that s/he would never again behave as s/he did towards Student A, and that accordingly s/he ‘can confidently assure QCAT and QCT that I do not pose any type of risk to children.’[34] S/he accepts that his/her actions towards Student A were ‘totally irresponsible’ and expresses remorse for them because of their potential impact on him/her, and on his/her own situation.[35] That said, s/he suggests that Student A’s responses to his/her email to his/her from his/her private account indicate that s/he did not suffer harm.[36]
  3. [32]
    Without seeking to excuse his/her behaviours, s/he explains circumstances that occurred at his/her employing school in the 18 months or so before the events concerning Student A. There was a changed focus which negatively impacted on programs in which s/he was heavily involved and personally invested. Some key staff were made redundant and several others left. These losses and anxiety about the security of his/her own employment in his/her family circumstances, s/he believes triggered the onset of his/her depression. At the same time, s/he felt trapped in a job s/he no longer enjoyed. Although s/he contemplated leaving, remaining in the position suited his/her personal circumstances.
  4. [33]
    Then, closer to the events with student A, s/he considers his/her worst fears were realised in changes made at the school. S/he understands that this worsened his/her depression. [redacted] S/he felt isolated and unvalued at school, at a time when there were pressures within his/her immediate family (resulting in a significant reduction in intimacy with his/her partner) and isolation from extended family.
  5. [34]
    At this stage, s/he says he began to access online adult pornography and online chat forums, as a distraction. S/he set up the personal email address referred to earlier as a means to correspond with strangers online. S/he says that, in what s/he recognises is a distorted way, this made him/her feel desirable and appreciated. Although at times s/he intended to delete the account, s/he did not and then ‘pathetically returned to using the site.’[37]
  6. [35]
    As the months went on, s/he reached a state of ‘despair’ about the school-related matters.[38] S/he increased the regularity at which s/he accessed online adult pornography and online chat forums, as his/her feelings of loneliness increased and self-worth plummeted.
  7. [36]
    S/he says that in the months when the events concerning Student A occurred, s/he was at a low point. [39] [redacted] In this period, Student A also spoke increasingly with him/her about his/her personal circumstances, and after Student A had told him/her things, s/he comforted Student A with a hug which s/he understood was permissible.
  8. [37]
    S/he subsequently asked Student A for his/her private email address and Teacher CXJ used a private email address to anonymously contact Student A. In his/her confused state Teacher CXJ says s/he wanted ‘to feel a form of intimacy but from a distance.’[40]  S/he says that it was never his/her intention to meet Student A or disclose his/her own identity, it was ‘just a part of the role playing that occurred online’.[41] Teacher CXJ subsequently ended the online correspondence with Student A [redacted].
  9. [38]
    Subsequently, s/he received notification from his employer of allegations against him/her of inappropriate behaviour. Soon after, s/he was called upon to answer detailed allegations. S/he broke down, seeking family support, as well as medical assistance and legal advice. His/her general practitioner referred him/her immediately for counselling. S/he was diagnosed with depression. S/he resigned, moved home and sought extended family support.
  10. [39]
    Even before moving, s/he asserts that s/he had reached a point that s/he could speak openly to others about his/her depression, feelings and situation, encouraging others to immediately seek counselling and support if they felt as s/he did. S/he says that in future, s/he would seek help promptly if s/he began to feel stressed or anxious and would also be more open with his/her employer in addressing issues of concern.
  11. [40]
    Teacher CXJ’s general practitioner’s report confirms the diagnosis of ‘severe depression/anxiety’. A brief report from his/her psychologist confirms the diagnoses. It suggests that personality testing was done which revealed no underlying pathology of concern. Further, his/her psychologist considers that there is no evidence that his/her behaviour is representative of a pattern of behaviour, and instead appears to have been ‘the result of an exercise of poor judgment in a one off situation’, for which s/he appears ‘genuinely remorseful’. For these reasons, the psychologist is of the opinion that s/he does not represent an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  12. [41]
    Teacher CXJ also provides copies of glowing emails from students and several former colleagues expressing their sadness that s/he was leaving the school; praising his/her passion for teaching and his/her motivating teaching skills, and mentoring skills. They also speak of his/her impressive personal qualities including empathy, kindness, warmth, energy, supportive nature and enthusiasm. [redacted]
  13. [42]
    While the QCT acknowledges that Teacher CXJ has made steps towards treatment for his/her conditions, QCT submits that the Tribunal could not presently be satisfied that Teacher CXJ does not represent an unacceptable risk of harm, pointing to ‘deficiencies’ in the psychological report. It submits that these include a lack of detail about the number of sessions that Teacher CXJ has undertaken or when; a lack of detail about what Teacher CXJ disclosed to his/her psychologist; no information about whether s/he requires ongoing treatment and has developed risk minimisation strategies; and no detail about the assessments undertaken or the results other than the conclusion that there are no issues for concern. Further, it submits Teacher CXJ has minimised the significance of his/her conduct in asserting his/her belief that Student A has not been harmed by his/her gross breach of professional boundaries. Also, rather than being a one-off, it points to what it describes as a calculated and protracted course of escalating behaviour.

Discussion and conclusions

  1. [43]
    The allegations about Teacher CXJ’s conduct which the QCT relied upon in suspending his/her teacher registration included inappropriate touching of Student A, sending  explicitly sexual emails to Student A, together with pornographic images, and representations that s/he wished to engage in sexual acts with Student A. The substance of the allegations is admitted by Teacher CXJ. QCT submits, and I accept, that the conduct constitutes gross breaches by Teacher CXJ of professional boundaries, which was effected through a series of acts. It may be readily accepted that such conduct has the potential to have a detrimental effect of a significant nature on a child’s psychological and emotional well-being. Therefore, on the basis that past behaviour is usually an accurate indicator of likely future behaviour, it constitutes a risk of harm. 
  2. [44]
    S/he submits that s/he does not now pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  3. [45]
    Based on the evidence, it is apparent that Teacher CXJ was very highly regarded by his/her colleagues and students. I accept that the events occurred at a time of significant personal difficulty and when s/he had mental health issues which affected his/her judgment. S/he expresses remorse, and I accept that s/he is remorseful, for his/her behaviour. I am further satisfied based on Teacher CXJ’s submissions and the psychological report, (although the report is brief), that s/he has taken steps towards addressing his mental health issues.
  4. [46]
    However, I accept the QCT’s submission that the evidence currently relied upon by Teacher CXJ does not support a finding that Teacher CXJ does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  5. [47]
    In particular, the psychologist’s report is brief. It is not apparent what disclosures were made by Teacher CXJ to the psychologist about the events. The nature of and the results of the assessments undertaken, as opposed to the psychologist’s very brief conclusion about whether they disclose any relevant issues, are not disclosed. Teacher CXJ’s current level of functioning and insight into relevant matters is not discussed in the report, nor any need for ongoing treatment. The extent of treatment to date is unknown. Whether Teacher CXJ has developed, and demonstrated an ability to apply, any protective risk minimisation strategies is not disclosed. The psychologist’s opinion as to the extent of ongoing risk of harm to children may be given greater weight if the basis for the report and opinions was transparent. There may be other matters which the psychologist considers relevant to the assessment of whether Teacher CXJ does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. It may also be helpful if the report disclosed the psychologist’s experience, if any, in risk assessment, concerning the protection of children.
  6. [48]
    Also, it is of concern that Teacher CXJ denies any actual harm to Student A. S/he cannot know how the events may have affected Student A, nor any longer term effects it may have on the student. The evidence, including the teacher’s own evidence, suggests that Student A may have some underlying vulnerability which might well predispose him/her to ongoing detrimental effects. In any event, this appears to be an attempt to downplay the seriousness of the potential for harm which may result from such conduct. Teacher CXJ’s comments tend to suggest that s/he does not have the degree of insight that would be necessary before it could be accepted that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm.
  7. [49]
    Teacher CXJ’s submission and supporting evidence has not discharged the onus s/he has to satisfy the Tribunal that s/he does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.
  8. [50]
    At this stage, I am not satisfied that Teacher CXJ does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. Accordingly, the suspension of his/her teacher registration must continue.
  9. [51]
    As discussed earlier, it is now open to Teacher CXJ to file an application for review of this decision of the Tribunal, supported by a more detailed psychological report (and any other relevant material s/he may file), should s/he choose to do so.

The application for a non-publication order

  1. [52]
    Generally speaking, the names of parties to proceedings are published, together with details of the matters in issue. This provides accountability, transparency and, in disciplinary proceedings generally, deterrent effect. The health professional material currently available does not address the effect of publication of information on the teacher’s mental health. 
  2. [53]
    That said, I am satisfied that it is not in the interests of justice, and to avoid the potential to endanger the mental health of Student A, that a non-publication order is necessary to prohibit the publication of information which may lead to his/her identification, the identification of the other students referred to in the material before the Tribunal, and the school concerned. This necessarily includes the non-publication of the teacher’s name.
  3. [54]
    In this particular instance, because [redacted] (and [redacted] has the potential to endanger the student’s mental health), some of the details of the alleged events must also be redacted. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is necessary to make a broad order to the effect that, other than to the parties, only the information contained in the de-identified redacted version of the reasons for decision made publicly available may be published. 

Orders

  1. [55]
    I make orders accordingly.

Footnotes

[1][2016] QCAT 441.

[2]QCT Act, s 50(5).

[3]Ibid, s 53(1).

[4]Ibid, s 55(1)(b).

[5]QCT Act, s 55(2).

[6]Ibid, s 53(3)(b).

[7]Ibid, s 53(2); and QCAT Act s Chapter 2 Part 1 Divisions 1-3.

[8]Ibid, s 50(1).

[9]Ibid, s 50(3).

[10]Ibid, s 50(1).

[11]Ibid, s 50(4) and s 50(5).

[12]Ibid, s 50(3)(c).

[13]Ibid, s 54(3).

[14]Ibid, s 54(1) and (2).

[15]Ibid, s 55(1)(b).

[16]Ibid, s 55(3).

[17]Ibid, s 55(4).

[18]Ibid, s 55(6)(b).

[19]M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69.

[20]QCT Act, s 3(1)(a).

[21]Ibid, s 3(1)(b).

[22]Ibid, s 3(1)(c).

[23]Ibid, s 7.

[24]M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69.

[25]M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69, at 78.

[26]Footnotes not included.

[27]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361 to 362 as clarified by cases including Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517, 521 and Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170,171.

[28][2015] QCAT 426 at [17]. (Although that decision was appealed, the appeal did not concern the onus of proof: see Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125.

[29]QCT Act, s 54(1)(b).

[30]Submissions of Teacher CXJ filed on 16 November 2016.

[31]Submissions of Teacher CXJ filed on 16 November 2016, page 1.

[32]Ibid.

[33]Ibid.

[34]Submissions of Teacher CXJ filed on 16 November 2016, page 1.

[35]Ibid, pages 1-2.

[36]Ibid, page 6.

[37]Ibid, page 3.

[38]Ibid.

[39]Ibid.

[40]Submissions of Teacher CXJ filed on 16 November 2016, page 4.

[41]Ibid, page 4.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ

  • MNC:

    [2016] QCAT 511

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Howard

  • Date:

    30 Nov 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Cite 2 - (1938) 60 C.L.R 336
Fardon v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2004) 223 CLR 575
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2004) 223 CLR 575
M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1988) 166 CLR 69
Cite 2 - (1988) 166 CLR 69
Cite 3 - (1988) 166 CLR 69
Cite 4 - (1988) 166 CLR 69
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Cite 2 - (1992) 67 ALJR 170
QCT v Teacher GXM [2016] QCAT 441
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 441
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 441
Queensland College of Teachers v CSK [2016] QCATA 125
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCATA 125
Cite 2 - [2016] QCATA 125
Queensland College of Teachers v Smith [2015] QCAT 426
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 426
Rejfek v McElroy (1965) 112 CLR 517
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1965) 112 CLR 517
Cite 2 - (1965) 112 CLR 517

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v ALE [2018] QCAT 1503 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v BCS [2017] QCAT 2483 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CAW [2017] QCAT 1113 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CMH [2017] QCAT 4016 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CMH [2017] QCAT 1672 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v CMH [2018] QCAT 2523 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v DQS [2017] QCAT 4633 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v DWS [2017] QCAT 2903 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v ELN [2018] QCAT 1493 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v HDN [2017] QCAT 1123 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v JNJ [2017] QCAT 1253 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v JNS [2017] QCAT 2503 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT 483 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v NH [2018] QCAT 903 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v ODM [2017] QCAT 2293 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v PKP [2017] QCAT 943 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BL [2022] QCAT 2532 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2017] QCAT 834 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ [2018] QCAT 1171 citation
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CXJ (No 2) [2017] QCAT 1669 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FRT [2020] QCAT 4121 citation
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher GBM [2017] QCAT 4273 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HFE [2017] QCAT 4253 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher HIB [2018] QCAT 1363 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher OLC [2018] QCAT 1372 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher PFO [2022] QCAT 2542 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher RN [2018] QCAT 3901 citation
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher WND [2018] QCAT 73 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.