Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Queensland College of Teachers v MKR - [2025] QCAT 188

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

Queensland College of Teachers v MKR[2025] QCAT 188

Queensland College of Teachers v MKR[2025] QCAT 188

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Queensland College of Teachers v MKR [2025] QCAT 188

PARTIES:

queensland college of teachers

(applicant)

v

MKR

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

OCR230-24

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Kate Chapple, Presiding

Member Colleen Cartwright

Member Richard English

ORDERS:

  1. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is established.
  2. Pursuant to section 161(2)(c) of the Act, MKR is prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of three (3) years. 
  3. The prohibition period is deemed to be served from the date of MKR’s suspension of registration, being 5 January 2021.
  4. Pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Act, a notation be entered in the teacher register as follows:

Should MKR reapply for registration or permission to teach, the application must be accompanied by an independent psychological report to the satisfaction of the Queensland College of Teachers, which includes an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that MKR has adequately understood and addressed the following issues:

  1. Differentiation between personal and professional relationships;
  2. MKR’s awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate communication and behaviour with students;
  3. The impact of inappropriate communication, conduct and relationships upon students, families, schools and the profession;
  4. MKR’s awareness of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate use of social media and electronic communications with students;
  5. The concept, and importance, of professional boundaries;
  6. The development and maintenance of professional standards and professional boundaries when working with students;
  7. The need to protect children and students from physical, psychological and emotional harm;
  8. Risk assessment and early identification of potentially problematic situations;
  9. How to achieve realistic solutions to avoid the risk of harm to students;
  10. The legal obligations of teachers and tutors;
  11. The extent and nature of the trust and power invested in a teacher by students, colleagues, parents and the community;
  12. Conduct that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the teaching profession;
  13. The importance of full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers Code of Ethics.
  1. Pursuant to section 161(1)(d) of the Act, a further notation be entered in the teacher register as follows:

Should MKR reapply for registration or permission to teach, the application must be accompanied by an independent psychological report to the satisfaction of the Queensland College of Teachers, which includes an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that MKR is psychologically capable and fit to discharge all future teaching responsibilities, and if so, whether any conditions or restrictions on those responsibilities should apply.

  1. The independent psychological reports referred to in orders 4 and 5 must include confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of:
  1. These orders and reasons;
  2. The Referral to the Tribunal filed 18 October 2024.
  3. MKR’s response to allegations filed 29 November 2024 and any other statement of agreed facts.
  1. Pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify MKR, or any relevant former student, or any relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as otherwise provided under the Act. MKR may provide a copy of this decision and reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with disclosure requirements.
  2. MKU is to bear the cost of obtaining the independent psychological reports referred to in orders 4 and 5.

CATCHWORDS:

EDUCATION – SCHOOL – TEACHER DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – where an experienced teacher contacted a former student after graduation on a messaging platform and sent images and messages of and about the teacher’s breasts and genitals, engagement in sexual acts and illicit drug use – where teacher attempted to conceal the images and messages – where teacher had previously engaged in discussions with the former student and other students in a school context about pornography and marijuana – where teacher had been the subject of previous disciplinary action – where ground for disciplinary action established – where standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher not satisfied – where unexplained delay in making referral to Tribunal – where prohibition order effective from date of teacher’s suspension

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 3, s 92(1), s 111A, s 115, s 158(2), s 161, Schedule 3

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32, s 66

Queensland College of Teachers v DHN [2022] QCAT 406

Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671

Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241

Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152

Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694

Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

Applicant:

Ms N Morrison, in-house counsel for the Queensland College of Teachers

Respondent:

Holding Redlich

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

  1. [1]
    MKR (‘the Teacher’) was originally granted teacher registration (‘the Teacher’s registration’) with the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the QCT’) on 11 April 2008. Following receipt of a notification of allegations of the Teacher’s inappropriate conduct in relation to a former student, the QCT suspended the Teacher’s registration on 5 January 2021, and on referral, the Tribunal decided on 25 February 2021 to continue the suspension. On 13 July 2021, the QCT cancelled the Teacher’s registration due to non-payment of teacher registration renewal fees.
  2. [2]
    A non-publication order was made by the Tribunal on 28 February 2021.
  3. [3]
    The QCT undertook an investigation of the allegations against the Teacher and on 20 December 2021, the Professional Capacity and Teacher Conduct Committee of the QCT (‘the PC & TC Committee’) decided under section 115 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) to refer the matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary action.
  4. [4]
    The QCT filed a Referral – disciplinary proceeding in the Tribunal on 18 October 2024.
  5. [5]
    The Teacher admits the allegations of inappropriate conduct and that disciplinary grounds are established under section 92(1)(h) of the Act.
  6. [6]
    The parties’ submissions indicate a difference of opinion as the appropriate sanction and a concurrence of opinion in favour of the continuation of a non-publication order on certain terms.
  7. [7]
    The QCT seeks an order that the Teacher is prohibited from reapplying for registration as a teacher or permission to teach for between three and four years, however does not specify the date of commencement of that period.
  8. [8]
    The Teacher seeks an order that the Teacher is prohibited from reapplying for registration as a teacher or permission to teach for a period of 12 months from the date of the order.

Legislation

  1. [9]
    Schedule 3 of the Act defines “approved teacher” as a person who is a registered teacher or holds a permission to teach and defines “relevant teacher” to include an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.
  2. [10]
    Section 92(1) of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher, including the following contained in sub-paragraph (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. [11]
    Under section 111A of the Act, the PC & TC Committee may refer a matter to the Tribunal where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher (an approved teacher or former approved teacher) may exist. Section 115 of the Act sets out the functions of the PC & TC Committee in relation to a practice and conduct matter, including to refer the matter to the Tribunal.
  2. [12]
    Schedule 3 of the Act defines “former approved teacher” as a former registered teacher or a former holder of a permission to teach.
  3. [13]
    Section 161(2) of the Act sets out the Tribunal’s powers in circumstances where it decides that a ground for disciplinary action has been established against a former approved teacher. In summary, the Tribunal may:
    1. Decide to take no further action;
    2. Make an order that the teacher pay the QCT certain costs;
    3. If the Tribunal 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 for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;
    4. Make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.

Jurisdiction

  1. [14]
    We are satisfied the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine and make orders in this matter.

Admitted conduct

  1. [15]
    The Teacher taught the former student in his years 10, 11 and 12 of high school (2016-2018).
  2. [16]
    In 2017, during a school trip to a city in the region of the school, the Teacher gave the former student and other students her mobile phone number.
  3. [17]
    During 2018, the Teacher engaged in inappropriate discussions with her year 12 students during class and practice, including discussions about pornography and marijuana.
  4. [18]
    On 30 March 2019, the Teacher and the former student became ‘friends’ on the messaging platform, Snapchat. The Teacher was then aged 36 years and had been a teacher for ten years.
  5. [19]
    During 2019, after 30 March 2019, the Teacher sent to the former student via Snapchat photographs of her breasts and genitals before she became a teacher, photographs of her engaging in sexual acts such as spanking, descriptions of sexual acts she had performed in the past, photographs and messages relating to her using illicit substances, messages commenting on images of the former student not wearing a shirt, and responding to requests to send a video of her engaging in a sexual act with two people by saying that would be illegal and that maybe she would after he turned 18. Some of these exchanges occurred while the former student was aged 17. The Teacher asked the former student not to tell anyone about the messages she was sending or to circulate the images to anyone.
  6. [20]
    In October/November 2020, the Teacher sent a screenshot and message to the former student on Facebook indicating that she had received a message via the former student’s Snapchat threatening to send their Snapchat messages to the Teachers’ board.

Filed material

  1. [21]
    Affidavit of Mr Rentala of the QCT (with annexures A to K) sworn 15 October 2024.
  2. [22]
    The Teacher’s response to each of the allegations dated 29 November 2024.
  3. [23]
    The QCT’s submissions and orders sought dated 3 February 2025.
  4. [24]
    The Teacher’s submissions and orders sought dated 3 March 2025.
  5. [25]
    Psychologist’s report dated 19 November 2024 setting out the results of a functional impairment assessment of the Teacher.
  6. [26]
    The Teacher’s letter to the Tribunal (dated 3 August 2025; corrected to 3 March 2025 by paragraph 22 of the Teacher’s submissions of the same date).

Consideration

  1. [27]
    We are satisfied, as the QCT and the Teacher have agreed, that the Teacher’s conduct does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
  2. [28]
    We note it is well settled that the purpose of sanctions in a disciplinary action is not punitive. Rather, the purpose is to achieve the main objects of the Act, being to uphold the standards of and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to protect the public, while providing specific and general deterrence.[1] 
  3. [29]
    We note that in determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal may have regard to various factors, including:[2]
    1. The teacher’s antecedents and experience.
    2. The nature of the teacher’s conduct.
    3. The level of insight of the teacher.
    4. The impact the conduct may have on students.
    5. Whether any remedial action has been taken by the teacher.
  4. [30]
    We have regard to these and other factors in weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of this case and considering the overall the scale of the Teacher’s conduct.

Mitigating circumstances

  1. [31]
    The Teacher did not have any physical contact with the student, nor did she seek to.
  2. [32]
    The Teacher filed on 29 November 2024 a response to the QCT’s application admitting the allegations, thus obviating the need for the Tribunal to hear the matter and make findings of fact as to her conduct.
  3. [33]
    The Teacher’s letter to the Tribunal dated 3 March 2025 includes the following relevant statements:

I am writing to express my regret for and accept responsibility for my actions in relation to this matter…

I realise that my actions could have brought the teaching profession into disrepute, and I deeply regret what I did. I understand that as a teacher there is a level of trust and power balance with students. It is important to adhere to the professional standards to maintain the trust of the community and the profession’s standards.

Due to my financial situation and the impact that these proceedings have had on my health, I have not yet enrolled in a professional boundaries course. However, I am willing to enrol and complete a relevant course as I am committed to maintaining the standards of the profession.

  1. [34]
    The Teacher’s registration was suspended on 5 January 2021, and despite the PC & TC Committee’s decision on 20 December 2021 to refer the matter to the Tribunal, a referral was not filed until 18 October 2024, a delay of nearly two years and ten months, for which the QCT has not provided any explanation.
  2. [35]
    To date, it has been over four years and four months since the Teacher’s registration was suspended.

Aggravating circumstances

  1. [36]
    The Teacher was subject to previous disciplinary action, a reprimand, on 6 August 2015 following a conviction and sentencing (good behaviour bond and $600 recognisance) for drug related offences. At the time of the reprimand, the Teacher was cautioned that her conduct potentially damaged the status of the profession, and that similar conduct could result in more serious disciplinary action being taken against her.
  2. [37]
    Aged 36 years and having been a teacher for ten years, we consider the Teacher was not young and inexperienced at the time of the conduct the subject of this disciplinary action.
  3. [38]
    The Teacher completed Code of Conduct – Student Protection training in January 2017, 2018 and 2019. The training makes teachers aware of the position of trust and authority they hold in their relationship with students, that the relationship continues after the student graduates, and that engaging in illicit drug use is not appropriate conduct by a teacher.
  4. [39]
    Prior to the conduct the subject of this disciplinary action, the Teacher had discussions about pornography and marijuana with year 12 students during class and practice and shared her mobile phone number with the former student and other students during a school camp.
  5. [40]
    The Teacher’s conduct continued over several months in the one year.
  6. [41]
    The Teacher was aware that her conduct was inappropriate as evidenced in her Snapchat messages to the former student indirectly referencing her past disciplinary issues and asking the former student not to tell anyone about her messages to him and not to circulate the images to anyone.
  7. [42]
    The Teacher was aware that the former student was aged 17 years during their earlier Snapchat exchanges and commented to the former student that it would be illegal to send him videos of her engaging in sexual activity and that she may send them to him when he turned 18.
  8. [43]
    The Teacher contacted the former student again when she became aware that a third party was intending to report her conduct.
  9. [44]
    The Teacher declined the invitation to make submissions during the investigation of her conduct in February 2021 and took until November 2024 to admit the allegations.
  10. [45]
    While the Teacher’s letter to the Tribunal expresses her regret and accepts responsibility for her conduct, she makes no reference to the specific conduct and its seriousness nor the potential for her conduct to have impacted the former student’s wellbeing.
  11. [46]
    The psychologist’s report states in summary that the Teacher’s assessment scores indicate symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of a severe major depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder. We consider this report raises serious questions about the Teacher’s capacity and fitness to return to teaching in the future. It is also clear the Teacher has to date sought professional help only for her own mental health issues, and not for the purposes of understanding and addressing her conduct the subject of this disciplinary action. We note the Teacher acknowledges in her letter to the Tribunal the impact this matter has had on her health and financial situation and states a willingness to complete a professional boundaries course or similar.

Previous decisions

  1. [47]
    Section 158(2) of the Act requires that in making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which the Tribunal is aware.
  2. [48]
    The parties have referenced the following previous matters decided by the Tribunal in which a ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Act was established, as a guide for the appropriate sanction in this matter:
    1. Queensland College of Teachers v DHN [2022] QCAT 406 (‘DHN’): Over a period of three months, the teacher of 21 years’ experience engaged in discussions on social media with a 15-year-old student, vulnerable due to being an illicit drug user and disengaged from schooling, about drug taking, alcohol consumption and wanting to party. The teacher invited the student to a party and encouraged the use of illicit substances, however did not supply drugs or alcohol or engage in sexualised behaviour. Sanction: two-year prohibition on applying for registration, with conditions.
    2. Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152 (‘NRR’): The teacher of 16 years’ experience engaged in communications with three former students involving references to drug, alcohol and steroid use and intimate and/or sexual content, including the exchange of intimate and/or sexual images, and the teacher accepted an invitation to meet one of the former students. Sanction: two-year nine-month prohibition on applying for registration, with conditions.
    3. Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671 (‘DRR’): The teacher of 7 years’ experience taught the student in years 11 and 12 and contacted her soon after graduation, aged 17 and considered vulnerable. More than 200 texts were exchanged between the teacher and former student over a period of four months involving discussions about sex, sending a graphic sexual image and attempts to meet the student to have sex. The teacher attempted to conceal the communications, denied some allegations, and appeared to lack remorse. Sanction: two-year six-month prohibition on applying for registration.
  3. [49]
    We consider the conduct in DRR is closely equivalent to that admitted in this matter. There are differences however in this matter that influence the overall scale of the Teacher’s conduct. On the one hand, the Teacher never attempted to meet the former student for sexual or other purposes, the Teacher ultimately admitted to all allegations and expressed her regret for her conduct. On the other hand, the Teacher had three more years’ teaching experience, the Teacher had been subject to previous disciplinary action (a caution) following a conviction and sentencing for drug related offences and had been put on notice that similar conduct in the future could result in more serious disciplinary action, the Teacher had engaged in previous inappropriate interactions with the former student and other students in a school context, the Teacher had undergone Code of Conduct – Student Protection training in three successive years, the most recent occurring early in the year of the conduct, and the Teacher did not acknowledge to the Tribunal her specific conduct and its seriousness nor the potential for her conduct to have impacted the former student’s wellbeing.

Findings

Prohibition period

  1. [50]
    We find that a ground for disciplinary action against the Teacher (a former approved teacher) has been established under section 92(1)(h) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s powers are found in section 161 of the Act.
  2. [51]
    Section 161(2)(c) of the Act requires us to determine first whether, if the Teacher had been an approved teacher, we would have made an order cancelling the Teacher’s registration. Consistent with the pre-determinations made in the previous decisions referenced, we determine that we would have made such an order. In these circumstances, section 161(2)(c) empowers the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the Teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period (‘the prohibition period’) from the date the order is made or indefinitely.
  3. [52]
    Frequently in disciplinary matters of this nature there is an extended period between the date of the teacher’s suspension and the date of the Tribunal’s orders during which the teacher is unable to teach. It has therefore been the practice of the Tribunal to order that the prohibition period is effective from the date of suspension. This occurred in the previous decisions referenced and, we note, many others. In some matters, the effect of this practice is that the prohibition period expires sometime after the date of the Tribunal’s orders; in other matters, the expiration of the prohibition period pre-dates the Tribunal’s orders. It is a matter for the Parliament to consider whether legislative amendment is appropriate to address this issue.
  4. [53]
    In the absence of legislative amendment, and in the interests of consistency in Tribunal decision making, we consider it is appropriate in this matter to continue the practice of the Tribunal to order that the prohibition period is effective from the date of suspension. Whether or not the prohibition period expires before or after the date of the Tribunal’s orders, we consider it is critical that the Tribunal order a prohibition period by reference to the range of comparable previous decisions to clearly identify the scale of the teacher’s conduct.
  5. [54]
    We consider that this matter warrants a sanction in excess of that imposed in DRR to provide specific deterrence to the Teacher where a previous sanction has proven to be insufficient deterrence and to otherwise uphold the standards of and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to protect the public.
  6. [55]
    As already noted in these reasons, the Teacher has been suspended and not been employed as a teacher since 5 January 2021, a period of over four years and four months.
  7. [56]
    We find that the appropriate prohibition period in this matter is three years, and it is fair and just in all the circumstances that the prohibition period is deemed to be served from the date of the Teacher’s suspension of registration. We order accordingly.

Notations

  1. [57]
    Section 161(2)(d) of the Act further empowers the Tribunal to make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
  2. [58]
    We note that the QCT, as part of its Referral filed on 18 October 2024, sought (inter alia) an order that a notation, specifically worded, be entered in the register requiring that any reapplication by the Teacher for registration or permission to teach be accompanied by an independent psychological report addressing, in summary, whether the psychologist is satisfied that the Teacher has adequately understood and addressed her conduct.
  3. [59]
    We note that the QCT, in its submissions filed on 3 February 2025, did not include any such notation as part of the orders sought, and did not reference or give any explanation for its omission.
  4. [60]
    We find that the notation remains appropriate in the circumstances and order that the notation be entered in the register, adopting the equivalent wording of the QCT in its Referral.
  5. [61]
    In light of the psychologist’s report referred to earlier in these reasons, we order that a further notation be entered in the register that:

Should the Teacher reapply for registration or permission to teach, the application must be accompanied by an independent psychological report to the satisfaction of the Queensland College of Teachers including an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that the Teacher is psychologically capable and fit to discharge all future teaching responsibilities, and if so, whether any conditions or restrictions on those responsibilities should apply.

Non-publication

  1. [62]
    The parties have made submissions in support of an ongoing non-publication order.
  2. [63]
    Pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify a person who has appeared before the Tribunal where the Tribunal considers the order necessary for the reasons stated in the provision, including any other reason in the interests of justice.
  3. [64]
    We accept the parties’ written submissions regarding the need to protect the interests of the former student, including his mental health and safety, and the interests of the school.
  4. [65]
    We order that:

Other than to the parties to this proceeding, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify the Teacher, or any relevant former student, or any relevant school, other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations and as otherwise provided under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld). The Teacher may provide a copy of this decision and reasons to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with disclosure requirements.

Human rights considerations

  1. [66]
    The question here is whether there are any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘the HR Act’).
  2. [67]
    The HR Act applies to courts and tribunals when they are performing functions that are relevant to the rights protected under the Act. This includes both the judicial and administrative functions of courts and tribunals. Judicial functions include hearing and determining cases.
  3. [68]
    The HR Act requires that all legislation is to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, to the extent that it is consistent with the purpose of the legislation. If legislation cannot be interpreted that way, it is to be interpreted in a way that is most compatible with human rights, to the extent that it is consistent with the purpose of the legislation.
  4. [69]
    ‘Compatible with human rights’ means the legislation does not limit a human right or limits a human right only to the extent that it is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 13 of the HR Act. Relevant factors include the nature of the human right and the importance of the purpose of the limitation.
  5. [70]
    We find that to the extent that the Tribunal’s orders in this matter may be considered to limit in any way the Teacher’s human rights, the limitation is reasonably and demonstrably justifiable for the protection of the public and upholding the standards of and maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession.

Footnotes

[1] Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25]; Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241, [26]; The Act s 3.

[2] Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v MKR

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Queensland College of Teachers v MKR

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 188

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Kate Chapple, Presiding, Member Colleen Cartwright, Member Richard English

  • Date:

    08 May 2025

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
QCT v DHN [2022] QCAT 406
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 406
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 406
Queensland College of Teachers v DRR [2012] QCAT 671
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 671
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 671
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 NRR [2021] QCAT 152
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QCAT 152
Cite 2 - [2021] QCAT 152
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCAT 694
Cite 2 - [2012] QCAT 694
Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QCAT 186
Cite 2 - [2015] QCAT 186

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.