Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2023
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v FPD - [2023] QCAT 240

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

Queensland College of Teachers v FPD[2023] QCAT 240

Queensland College of Teachers v FPD[2023] QCAT 240

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v FPD [2023] QCAT 240

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

(applicant)

v

FPD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR061-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Paratz AM (Presiding)

Member Newlands

Member Katter

ORDERS:

  1. 1.
    A ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  1. 2.
    FPD is indefinitely prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach under section 161(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).
  1. 3.
    Publication is prohibited, under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding, of any information that may identify the respondent, a relevant student or former student, or the relevant school, except that the Queensland College of Teachers may provide a copy of the decision and the reasons for this decision to:
  1. (a)
    any relevant body conducting an investigation or disciplinary proceedings relating to the matters giving rise to the proceedings;
  1. (b)
    the Chief Executive of the Department of Education;
  1. (c)
    other teacher regulatory authorities;
  1. (d)
    any employing authority for a school;
  1. (e)
    any principal of a school who was provided with a copy of the notice of suspension under s 50(4) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld);
  1. (f)
    the Minister for Education;
  1. (g)
    a relevant agency with whom the Queensland College of Teachers has entered into an information sharing agreement under s 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld);
  1. (h)
    the Chief Executive of Employment Screening; and
  1. (i)
    any other entity relevant to the teacher’s practice of the teaching profession.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – REGISTRATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – where a former teacher engaged in inappropriate communications and sexual relationships with two students/former students – whether the former teacher’s conduct satisfies standards of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – where the former teacher’s applying for registration or permission to teach was indefinitely prohibited

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where a non-publication order was made in the public interest and in the interests of justice – where exceptions were made for regulatory purposes

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3(1), s 92(1)(h), s 97, s 158, s 161

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

Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59

Queensland College of Teachers v CJK [2019] QCAT 115

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241

Queensland College of Teachers v MUE [2021] QCT 401

Queensland College of Teachers v RTM [2016] QCAT 501

Queensland College of Teachers v SGS  [2017] QCAT 383

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M. Girvan, Principal Legal Officer, Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

Holding Redlich, Solicitors

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    FPD was a male teacher at a school in South-East Queensland. On 7 June 2019 the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) received a notification from the school authorities regarding allegations that FPD had behaved inappropriately by commencing an inappropriate personal and romantic relationship with a female student which progressed to a sexual relationship.[1]
  2. [2]
    The school authority advised that FPD had previously been interviewed in 2013 regarding professional boundaries when he was a teacher at another school, that at the time the matter was dealt with by way of an internal management process, and that it was now alleged that matter had involved FPD commencing an inappropriate and romantic relationship with a female student which had continued until at least 2019.[2]
  3. [3]
    FPD resigned from his employment with the school on 14 June 2019.[3]
  4. [4]
    The QCT formed a belief that grounds for disciplinary action existed against FPD pursuant to section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (the Act), which provides that a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher is:
  1. (h)
    the person behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
  1. [5]
    Section 97 of the Act provides as to requirements for the college to start practice and conduct proceedings as follows:
  1. Requirement for college to start practice and conduct proceedings
  1. (1)
    If the college reasonably believes, other than on the basis of interstate information, that 1 or more grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher exist, the college must refer the matter to the practice and conduct body stated in subsection (2).
  1. (2)
    The practice and conduct body to which the matter must be referred is—
  1. (a)
       for a general matter—QCAT; or
  1. (b)
       for a PC&TC matter—the PC&TC committee.
  1. (3)
    However, subsection (1) does not apply to a matter in relation to which the college and the relevant teacher have entered into a practice and conduct agreement.
  1. (4)
       If a matter is referred to QCAT—
  1. (a)
    the college must inform QCAT about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds; and
  1. (b)
    QCAT must conduct a hearing and make decisions about the practice and conduct matter referred to QCAT having regard to the information provided by the college.
  1. [6]
    The Applicant informed the Tribunal about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds, pursuant to section 97(4)(a) of the Act.
  2. [7]
    An application for a disciplinary proceeding was filed by the QCT with the Tribunal on 29 March 2022.
  3. [8]
    The QCT sought an order that FPD be prohibited indefinitely from reapplying for registration or permission to teach.
  4. [9]
    FPD did not provide a Response to the Application, or file any material in the proceeding.
  5. [10]
    On 12 September 2020 the Tribunal directed that the matter be heard and determined on the papers. These are the Reasons and Decision of the duly constituted panel in the matter.

Substantiation

  1. [11]
    FPD was first registered as a teacher in Queensland in December 2009. 
  2. [12]
    From 2011 until 2013, FPD was employed as a registered teacher at a school in Queensland. Between 2013 and 2018, he was employed at another school in Queensland.  For the first half of 2019, he was employed at a third school in Queensland.
  3. [13]
    On 17 June 2019, the Respondent surrendered his Queensland teacher registration or permission to teach. Section 59 of the Act provides for such surrender as follows:
  1. 59
    Surrender of registration or permission to teach
  1. An approved teacher may surrender the teacher’s registration or permission to teach by-
  1. (a)
    returning to the college the teacher’s certificate of registration or certificate of permission to teach; and
  1. (b)
    giving notice of the surrender to the college.
  1. [14]
    The Respondent is a former approved teacher, as defined in Schedule 3 of the Act.
  2. [15]
    The facts and circumstances alleged by the QCT forming the basis of the ground for disciplinary action are as follows (identification removed):[4]
  1. 1.
    From December 2012, (FPD) commenced an ongoing, intimate personal relationship with a recently graduated (November 2012) Grade 12 student.
  1. 2.
    Between 3 September 2018 and 27 October 2019, whilst a teacher, engaged in overfamiliar email communication with another Grade 12 student using school authority email accounts.
  1. 3.
    Between 16 July 2018 and 15 November 2018, met with the student outside of school hours including:
  1. a)
    During Term 3, but prior to 1 September 2018, met with the student for breakfast at a coffee shop.
  1. b)
    On several occasions met with the student at a supermarket after school.
  1. c)
    On 4 September 2018, met with the student at a lookout and shared food with her.
  1. d)
    On 5 September 2018, allowed the student to attend his house.
  1. e)
    On Thursday, 8 November 2018, took a sick leave day from the school, drove with the student to a National Park and allowed her to drive his motor vehicle.
  1. f)
    On 15 November 2018, met with the student at a fast-food restaurant after her Grade 12 graduation dinner.
  1. 4.
    On 27 October 2018, provided his personal mobile telephone number to the student by email.
  1. 5.
    Between 28 October 2018 and 27 April 2019, called the student/former student 134 times.
  1. 6.
    Between 16 February 2019 and 28 February 2019, exchanged inappropriate and/or sexualised text messages with the student including:
  1. [Graphic text messages set out.]
  1. 7
    Around 22 November 2018, took a sick leave day from the school and travelled with the recently graduated student to another town where he;
  1. a)
    watched a movie
  1. b)
    held hands and kissed the student
  1. 8.
    On 1 December 2018, travelled with the recently graduated student in her vehicle to another town after the school staff party.
  1. 9.
    From late November 2018 to 25 March 2019, engaged in an intimate personal relationship with the recently graduated former student which included:
  1. a)
    Allowed the former student to attend his residence where he:
  1. i)
    on one occasion engaged in sexualised behaviour with the former student including kissing partially undressed.
  1. ii)
    on more than one occasion allowed the former student to attend his house where he engaged in sexual intercourse.
  1. b)
    On one occasion in December 2018 went looking at Christmas lights in a suburb and/or surrounding suburbs with the former student.
  1. c)
    Around 21 December 2018, allowed the former student to attend his residence, and during a storm which resulted in power being lost to his residence, he directed the former student to leave, despite her vehicle being parked in the garage, as his fiancé was returning home.
  1. d)
    On numerous occasions, attended the former student’s residence and engaged in sexual intercourse.
  1. e)
    On 3 January 2019 attended a sports event with the former student.
  1. f)
    On 7 January 2019, stayed at accommodation in another town with the former student and had sexual intercourse.
  1. g)
    On 11 January 2019, attended a cinema with the former student.
  1. h)
    On 19 January 2019, travelled to a holiday location with the former student and stayed at a hotel and had sexual intercourse.
  1. i)
    On 19 February 2019, took a sick leave day from the school and hired a motorcycle and travelled around another town with the former student.
  1. j)
    On 25 February 2019 he sent the former student a selfie photograph of his torso while wearing a towel.
  1. k)
    On 22 March 2019, ate takeaway food with the former student at another town and later returned to her house.
  1. l)
    On 23 March 2019, attended a hotel with the former student and later returned to her residence.
  1. 10.
    Around March 2019, engaged in dishonest conduct by:
  1. a)
    Creating a fake email address for the Manager of Professional Standards and Student Protection
  1. b)
    Using the email address to send an email to his school authority address purporting that he was under investigation.
  1. 11.
    In April 2019, met with the former student at another town and during the meeting held her hand and kissed her.
  1. [16]
    A comprehensive investigation report, dated 26 September 2019, was provided by the Professional Conduct Unit of the QCT. The report contained detail of the matters alleged by the QCT in the application for disciplinary proceedings.
  2. [17]
    No response to the application or referral-disciplinary proceeding was filed by FPD.
  3. [18]
    Solicitors for FPD advised the Tribunal by email on 26 July 2022 that their client did not intend to provide any submission in response to an application for miscellaneous matters filed by the QCT (as to filing of audio recordings of interviews), and would abide by the order of the Tribunal.
  4. [19]
    Solicitors for FPD advised the Tribunal by email on 8 September 2022 that their client did not seek to be heard at an upcoming Directions Hearing and would abide by the order of the Tribunal.
  5. [20]
    Solicitors for FPD advised the Tribunal by email on 10 January 2023 that their client sought permission to not make any appearance either in person or by representative at an upcoming Directions Hearing, did not wish to be heard in relation to Directions, and did not intend to submit any material, and would abide by the order of the tribunal.
  6. [21]
    The applicable standard of proof for the Tribunal is the civil standard on the balance of probabilities, with the degree of satisfaction varying according to the gravity of the facts to be proven.[5]
  7. [22]
    We are satisfied to the applicable standard that the facts and circumstances alleged in the Application, and evidenced in the Investigator’s Report, which have not been challenged by FPD, are made out.
  8. [23]
    The QCT submitted that the actions of FPD fall into the category of the most serious of conduct:[6]
  1. 25.
    The respondent breached his professional boundaries when forming relationships with two former students. The boundary breaches commenced when both women were students, progressing to sexual relationships once they had graduated.
  1. 26.
    The Tribunal have regarded teachers who breach their professional boundaries by engaging in sexual relationships with students and former students, as the most serious of conduct. In recent decisions the Tribunal has cancelled the teacher’s registration and/or imposed an indefinite period of prohibition from reapplying for registration or permission to teach.
  1. [24]
    The Act provides as to whether a ground for disciplinary action is established in section 158 of the Act as follows:
  1. Decision about whether ground for disciplinary action is established
  1. (1)
    As soon as practicable after finishing the hearing, QCAT must decide whether a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established.
  1. (2)
    In making its decision, QCAT must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which QCAT is aware.
  1. (3)
    Subsection (2) does not limit the matters QCAT may consider in making its decision.
  1. (4)
    In this section—
  1. former PP&C committee means the PP&C committee under the Act as in force before the commencement.
  1. former Teachers Disciplinary Committee means the Teachers Disciplinary Committee established under this Act before its abolition by the QCAT Act.
  2. practice and conduct body includes the former Teachers Disciplinary Committee and the former PP&C committee.
  1. [25]
    We accept the submissions of the QCT, and find that:
    1. (a)
      the behaviour of FPD did not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher, and that
    2. (b)
      grounds for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act are established.

Sanction

  1. [26]
    The disciplinary action provided by section 161 of the Act is as follows:
  1. Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher
  1. (1)
    This section applies if the relevant teacher is a former approved teacher.
  1. (2)
    If QCAT decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, QCAT may do 1 or more of the following-
  1. (a)
    decide to take no further action in relation to the matter;
  1. (b)
    make an order requiring the teacher to pay to the college, by way of costs, an amount QCAT considers appropriate having regard to-
  1. (i)
    any expenses incurred by the college in investigating the matter; and
  1. (ii)
    the expenses incurred by the college in the proceedings before QCAT;
  1. (c)
    If QCAT would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher—make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;
  1. Note—
  2. See also section 352 (Decision about disciplinary action against former approved teacher).
  1. (d)
    Make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
  1. [27]
    The relevant teacher is a former approved teacher as defined in the Act and section 161 therefore applies.
  2. [28]
    The QCT submits that FPD should be indefinitely prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach under section 161(2)(c) of the Act.
  3. [29]
    In Queensland College of Teachers v IOP[7] the Tribunal stated factors relevant to sanction:
  1. [26]
    Sanctions in a disciplinary action are not a ‘punishment’ nor are sanctions punitive action against a teacher or former teacher.  This is a well established principle in these matters. The purpose of the sanction is to uphold the objects of the Act.[8]
  1. [27]
    Factors that are relevant to sanction in this matter are as follows:
  1. (a)
    … breach of professional boundaries;
  1. (b)
    vulnerability of the students and risk of harm;
  1. (c)
    experience as a teacher; and
  1. (d)
    lack of insight into his behaviour
  1. [30]
    The QCT submit that the following factors are relevant as to sanction:[9]
  1. (a)
    The respondent was aged 24 years old when he commenced a relationship with (the first) former student and 30 years old at the time with (the second) former student.
  2. (b)
    The respondent had been a registered teacher for approximately three years when he engaged in inappropriate conduct with (the first) former student and approximately nine years when he breached professional boundaries concerning (the second) former student.
  3. (c)
    A direct teacher-student relationship existed with both former students.
  4. (d)
    The respondent was placed on notice regarding his inappropriate conduct over 2012/2013 when he was interviewed about (the first) former student in August 2013. Despite this, he repeated the conduct in 2018 with (the second) former student.
  5. (e)
    The respondent’s behaviour in both relationships demonstrates that he knew the wrongfulness of his conduct as a teacher and exhibits a manipulative, self-serving and deliberate pattern of breaching professional boundaries by developing inappropriate sexual relationships with recently graduated students.
  6. (f)
    The respondent did not make any submissions and declined to participate in both the (school authorities) investigation and during the QCT suspension and investigation stages.
  1. [31]
    It is significant that FPD was clearly aware of the wrongfulness of his conduct. This is clearly shown by a text message which he sent to his former student on 16 February 2019 as follows:

‘I love you’ ‘Always will love you’

‘You’re not losing me’ ‘I will make the changes in my life so that you don’t’

‘Because my fucking profession simply won’t accept such a relationship so soon’

  1. [32]
    The QCT referred to the following decisions being comparable to assist in determining the appropriate sanction:[10]
  • Queensland College of Teachers v RTM[11] - a 35-year-old teacher, who had held registration for 11 years, engaged in a large volume of over-familiar phone calls and text messages with a student who he taught when she was in Year 11. It led to the commencement of a sexual relationship when the student was in Year 12. The sexual relationship continued for five months after the student graduated. The Tribunal cancelled his registration, prohibited RTM from re-applying for seven years and eight months, ordered a notation on the register requiring any re-application be accompanied by a psychologist report and evidence of completion of a professional boundaries course, and ordered RTM pay $5000 costs.
  • Queensland College of Teachers v SGS[12] - a 42-year-old high school teacher who engaged in a long-standing sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student that commenced soon after the teacher was transferred to another school. The conduct included sexualised text messages, Facebook communication and ultimately sexual conduct and intercourse. SGS and the student cohabitated together within three months of her graduating from school. The precise length of the sexual relationship is unknown, but it was for at least 10 months and possibly longer. SGS was prohibited from reapplying for registration for seven years (from the end of his provisional registration) and required to provide a psychological report on re-application.
  • Queensland College of Teachers v CJK[13] - CJK was a primary school teacher with 16 years experience in the one school, when he was charged with seven counts of indecent dealing with children in his care. His conduct included providing massages to 5 students. While the teacher was found not guilty in the District Court on all seven charges, the Tribunal found that the evidence demonstrated consistent and repetitive boundary-crossing behaviour, despite the teacher’s attendance at all mandatory staff training and student protection training, which covered ‘professional boundaries’ training specifically. The teacher provided no evidence of insight despite being out of teaching for over four years at the time of the decision. The shallow statements of remorse provided by CJK, lacked a convincing understanding of the ongoing harm to the children involved. The Tribunal ordered that he be prohibited indefinitely from teaching where they found that the ‘serious, extended, and repetitive nature of the conduct’ created too great a risk of harm to children.
  • Queensland College of Teachers v ATL[14] - ATL was a mature and experienced high school teacher aged between 28 to 32 years old at the time of his conduct. He engaged in a sexual relationship with a year 12 student (from mid-2017 until February 2018) whilst also having a sexual relationship with a former student, that continued for approximately 3.5 years (between August 2014 to until December 2017). ATL taught both students and both relationships commenced with electronic communications that extended to gift giving and then lead to sexual intercourse. ATL also provided excessive amounts of academic assistance to the year 12 student. The tribunal stated: ‘In the absence of any evidence that ATL has reformed or is likely to change his behaviour, we consider that an indefinite prohibition is required in order to maintain standards in the profession, uphold public confidence in the profession, and protect future students’. ATL’s registration was cancelled and prohibited indefinitely from re-applying for registration or permission to teach.
  • Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MUE[15] - MUE was a sport/athletics teacher of approximately 10 years experience when he commenced engaging in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar conduct with a 15-year-old student. The misconduct spanned up to 6 years which included sitting in between the student’s legs, time alone with the student during and after school hours including one-on-one training personal sessions, transported the student in his vehicle or motorbike, and led to sexual intercourse when she was in year 11. The teacher purchased and consumed alcohol with the student and he used cannabis with the student, where police searched his vehicle. He was subsequently charged with possession of dangerous drugs. Whilst the teacher provided psychological and psychiatric reports, none mentioned his acknowledgement of harm to others, or ‘sorrow and remorse for his misconduct’. The Tribunal considered aggravating factors such as his failure to engage with the investigation or respond to Tribunal Directions, the delay in seeking medical treatment was viewed as ‘opportunistic to assist with the proceedings’, he was 32-36 years of age and an experienced teacher of more than 10 years, he had been warned to cease his conduct in 2014 and 2015 by two different principals, he expressed a minimal apology with no level of insight or remorse, he displayed poor modelling where he engaged in illicit drug use in public with the 15-year-old student and minimised his misconduct and sought apportion blame onto the student. The Tribunal ordered an indefinite period of prohibition after finding that he represented ‘an unacceptable risk of harm that was unlikely to change’.
  1. [33]
    In this matter, FPD had been warned in 2013 of the seriousness of breaching boundaries by having intimate relations with students and former students. He went on to repeat the behaviour in 2018. He clearly was aware that his behaviour was unacceptable as a teacher, but this did not deter him from such behaviour.
  2. [34]
    FPD has not made any submissions, and has not provided any evidence as to steps that he has taken to change his behaviour. There is no indication as to any educational courses, psychological treatment or counselling by him after the surrender of his registration in 2019. There is no evidence as to any mitigating factors, beyond his indicating that he would not oppose the Application and would abide by the decision of the Tribunal.
  3. [35]
    The previous decisions of the Tribunal in ATL and MUE are particularly applicable. In each case the Tribunal considered the likelihood of the teacher re-offending, and found that the teacher was unlikely to change. A similar conclusion is apparent in this matter, as there is a pattern of behaviour over multiple years by FPD to more than one student/former student of different schools where he was then employed, and no material to suggest that FPD is likely to change.
  4. [36]
    We accept the submissions of the QCT that the appropriate sanction in this matter is that an indefinite prohibition be made.
  5. [37]
    The Tribunal, having regard to the evidence before the Tribunal as referred to above, which evidence is not contradicted, would have made an order cancelling the Respondent’s registration or permission to teach if FPD had been an approved teacher, and the Tribunal therefore may make an order prohibiting FPD from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely, in accordance with section 161(2)(c) of the Act.
  6. [38]
    We order that:
  1. A ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) is established.
  2. FPD is indefinitely prohibited from applying for registration or permission to teach under section 161(2)(c) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).

Non-publication

  1. [39]
    The Tribunal may make a non-publication order under section 66(2)(d) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) to avoid the publication of information whose publication would be contrary to the public interest; or under section 66(2)(e) in the interests of justice.
  2. [40]
    The QCT submit that it would not be in interests of justice for any student or child or school to be identified and that this requires the respondent be de-identified.[16]
  3. [41]
    We consider that publication of material that may identify the former students, or the schools, which may lead to identification of the former students, would be contrary to the public interest and not in the interests of justice.
  4. [42]
    The QCT submits that, if a non-publication order is made, that there should be exceptions allowing for the sharing of information for regulatory purposes.[17] We accept that such exceptions should be made in the public interest.
  5. [43]
    We order that:
  1. Publication is prohibited, under section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding, of any information that may identify the respondent, a relevant student or former student, or the relevant school, except that the Queensland College of Teachers may provide a copy of the decision and the reasons for this decision to:
  1. (a)
    any relevant body conducting an investigation or disciplinary proceedings relating to the matters giving rise to the proceedings;
  2. (b)
    the Chief Executive of the Department of Education;
  3. (c)
    other teacher regulatory authorities;
  4. (d)
    any employing authority for a school;
  5. (e)
    any principal of a school who was provided with a copy of the notice of suspension under s 50(4) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld); the Minister for Education;
  6. (f)
    a relevant agency with whom the Queensland College of Teachers has entered into an information sharing agreement under s 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld);
  7. (g)
    the Chief Executive of Employment Screening; and
  8. (h)
    any other entity relevant to the teacher’s practice of the teaching profession.

Footnotes

[1]  Application or referral-disciplinary proceeding, part C [6].

[2]  Ibid [7].

[3]  Ibid [8].

[4]  Annexure ‘A’ to the Application or referral-disciplinary proceeding.

[5]  Paragraph [14] of the submissions of the Applicant dated 6 July 2022, citing Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34.

[6]  Submissions of the QCT filed on 6 July 2022.

[7]  (2022) QCAT 241.

[8]  Section 3(1) of the Act.

[9]  Submissions of the QCT, op cit, [31].

[10]  Op cit [34] to [38].

[11]  [2016] QCAT 501.

[12]  [2017] QCAT 383.

[13]  [2019] QCAT 115.

[14]  [2020] QCAT 59.

[15]  [2021] QCAT 401.

[16]  Op cit [51].

[17]  Ibid [53].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v FPD

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v FPD

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCAT 240

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Paratz AM (Presiding)

  • Date:

    26 Jun 2023

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) HCA 34
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1938) HCA 34
Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCAT 59
Cite 2 - [2020] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 241
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 241
Queensland College of Teachers v MUE [2021] QCT 401
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCT 401
Queensland College of Teachers v RTM [2016] QCAT 501
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QCAT 501
Cite 2 - [2016] QCAT 501
Queensland College of Teachers v SGS [2017] QCAT 383
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCAT 383
Cite 2 - [2017] QCAT 383
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher CJK [2019] QCAT 115
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 115
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 115
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher MUE [2021] QCAT 401
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 401

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Queensland College of Teachers v LGZ [2025] QCAT 3232 citations
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher ELP [2025] QCAT 612 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.