Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCATA
  3. 2023
  4. Norton v Queensland College of Teachers - [2023] QCATA 61

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

Norton v Queensland College of Teachers[2023] QCATA 61

Norton v Queensland College of Teachers[2023] QCATA 61

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2023] QCATA 61

PARTIES:

Qing Norton

(applicant/appellant)

v

Queensland College of Teachers

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL048-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR127-20

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – ERROR OF LAW – WHAT IS – GENERALLY – where the applicant was refused provisional teacher registration by the College – where the College was not satisfied that the applicant could communicate in written and spoken English at the prescribed level – where the Tribunal at first instance confirmed the College’s decision – whether the Tribunal erred in its use and interpretation of the College’s policy – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal erred in declining to make recommendations to the chief executive of the College in accordance with s 24(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 9(1)(d), s 210B(5)(a), s 215, s 235

Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016 (Qld), reg 9

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20(1), s 20(2), s 24(3), s 28(3)

Attudawage v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2011] QCAT 452

Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577

Pearse v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 392

Prime Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 [2019] QCAT 389

Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286

APPEARANCES &

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant/Appellant:

Self-represented, appearing with J Norton

Respondent:

S Robb of Counsel, instructed by B Houston, Queensland College of Teachers

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The applicant was refused provisional registration as a teacher by the respondent (‘the College’) pursuant to the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Teachers Act’). Following an unsuccessful review before an internal review committee, she filed an application for review before the Tribunal. In a decision handed down on 19 January 2022, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the College. The applicant now appeals that decision of the Tribunal at first instance.
  2. [2]
    The reason for the College’s refusal of registration was that it was not satisfied that the applicant could communicate in spoken and written English at the prescribed level.[1] Section 9(1) of the Teachers Act provides that ‘a person is eligible for provisional registration if the college is reasonably satisfied’ as to specified matters, including, at (d): ‘the person meets any other requirements for professional practice for provisional registration prescribed under a regulation’.
  3. [3]
    Relevantly, regulation 9 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016 (Qld) (‘the Regulation’) provides:

Additional requirement for professional practice for provisional registration

For section 9(1)(d) of the Act, the prescribed requirement for professional practice for provisional registration is the ability to communicate in spoken and written English at a professional level with students, parents, teachers and other persons.

  1. [4]
    In making its decision, the College took account of a policy entitled ‘English language proficiency requirements on application for teacher registration’ (‘the ELP Policy’).[2] The relevant part of the ELP Policy set out three options to demonstrate the required level of English language proficiency. The option selected by the applicant was:[3]

An IELTS[4] (Academic) assessment with an average band score of 7.5 across all four skill areas of listening, speaking, reading and writing - with no score below 7 in any of the four skills areas and a score of no less than 8 in speaking and listening.

  1. [5]
    In relation to that test, the Tribunal Member stated:[5]

The internal review decision records that the test results provided by Ms Norton to the College were completed on 14 September 2019. Ms Norton achieved scores of 7.5 in Listening, 8.0 in Speaking, 6.0 in Reading, and 6.5 in Writing, with an overall band score of 7.0. She did not meet the minimum scores required of 8.0 in Listening and 7.0 in Reading and Writing. Accordingly, Ms Norton did not meet the required standard under the ELP Policy.

  1. [6]
    Ultimately, the Tribunal Member found that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient English language proficiency for the purposes of the ELP Policy and the Regulation and confirmed the decision of the College.
  2. [7]
    There are seven grounds of appeal from that decision, which may be summarised as follows:
  1. (1)
    The Tribunal erred in reviewing the College’s internal review decision rather than the original decision of the College.
  2. (2)
    The Tribunal erred in holding that the ELP Policy is a ‘national professional standard’ as prescribed by the Act.
  3. (3)
    The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the ELP Policy.
  4. (4)
    The applicant was denied procedural fairness in that the College spuriously obtained IELTS results from the applicant and the College, and the Tribunal made improper use of the results in refusing provisional registration.
  5. (5)
    There was a denial of procedural fairness in that the ELP Policy was not readily available to the applicant and she was not aware that it was being used to assess her application.
  6. (6)
    The Tribunal erred in declining to make recommendations to the chief executive of the College in accordance with s 24(3) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’). 
  7. (7)
    The Tribunal erred in accepting and relying upon hearsay evidence.
  1. [8]
    At the appeal hearing, the applicant withdrew a further ground of appeal that was based on correspondence with the office of the Ombudsman.
  2. [9]
    The applicant also withdrew the four applications filed on 16 February 2023, which sought to have witnesses from the College attend the appeal hearing.
  3. [10]
    The grounds of appeal raise questions of law, involving questions as to the nature of the review before the Tribunal, the applicability and interpretation of the ELP Policy, whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, and the applicability of provisions of the QCAT Act. Accordingly, the appeal is of right and imports s 146 of the QCAT Act.

Ground 1

  1. [11]
    Ground 1 of the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in reviewing the College’s internal review decision rather than the original decision of the College. The Tribunal Member stated:[6]

In the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction, which is applicable in this case, s 19(a) of the QCAT Act requires me to decide this matter in accordance with the Teachers Act as the relevant 'enabling Act’. Section 19(c) provides the Tribunal has all the powers of the decision-maker who made the decision the subject of review. In other words, I stand in the shoes of the relevant decision-maker, which was the Internal Review Committee which made the internal review decision. I do not have a discretion to ignore the law applicable for the internal review decision. Given the statutory authorisation for the Policy, I propose to apply it.

  1. [12]
    While by s 210B(5)(a) and s 215 of the Teachers Act it is the original decision that is reviewed by the Tribunal, it is evident from the above passage that the Tribunal Member was simply referring to the applicable legislative provisions and noting that the Tribunal is governed by the same laws as the review committee. Those laws were applicable to both the original decision maker and the review committee. Further, the review committee simply confirmed the original decision. The nature of the hearing before the Tribunal was a fresh hearing on the merits: s 20(2) of the QCAT Act.
  2. [13]
    It is evident that the Tribunal understood the nature of its review function, including by reference to s 20(1) of the QCAT Act the obligation to ‘produce the correct and preferable decision’.[7]
  3. [14]
    As an extension of this submission, the applicant submits that the Tribunal can have regard only to material before the original decision-maker and not any additional material before the review committee. However, this misunderstands the nature of merits review before the Tribunal. By s 20(2) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal must conduct the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits: that is, generally, on the material before the Tribunal and by reference to the applicable law at the time of the Tribunal hearing.[8] In circumstances such as in the present case, it is appropriate that the decision made by the Tribunal be based on the most recently available material, including material that might, at the time of the Tribunal hearing, demonstrate that the requisite standard has been met.
  4. [15]
    This ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 2

  1. [16]
    Ground 2 of the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in holding, at [54], that the ELP Policy is a ‘national professional standard’ as prescribed by the Act. Section 235(1) of the Teachers Act provides that the College must adopt ‘the national professional standards’, or, with the approval of the Minister, adopt or develop other standards, while s 235(5)(a) provides that the professional standards may provide for the ‘abilities, knowledge and skills required for provisional registration’.
  2. [17]
    By s 235(8) of the Teachers Act, ‘national professional standards’ means the national professional standards prescribed under a regulation. Regulation 33 of the Regulations is headed ‘National professional standards’ and provides:
  1. (1)
    For section 235(8) of the Act, definition national professional standards, the national professional standards prescribed are the professional standards for teachers approved by the Ministerial Council.
  1. (2)
    In this section—

Ministerial Council means the Council of Commonwealth, State and Territories Ministers with responsibility for school education, as it exists from time to time.

  1. [18]
    Further, s 238 of the Act provides that the board is the governing body of the College and, among other things, the board decides the policies of the College.
  2. [19]
    The Tribunal Member at first instance stated (footnote omitted):
  1. [54]
    … The effect of s 235 of the Teachers Act and s 33 of the Regulation is that the College is required to adopt the national professional standards, which are the standards made by the Ministerial Council. Those standards are prescribed by s 33 of the Regulation. The standards provide for the abilities, knowledge and skills required for provisional registration. The evidence of Ms Cole is that the policy aligns with the national professional standards.
  1. [20]
    It is evident from the reasons for the decision that the national standards have been validly adopted. This was not in issue on appeal. The evidence accepted by the Tribunal Member, and not challenged by the applicant, is that the policy ‘aligns’ with the national professional standards.
  2. [21]
    It seems, in effect, that the issue raised by the applicant is that there was direct reliance on the ELP Policy rather than the national standards. While the Act requires the adoption of national professional standards, it also allows for the making of policies by the College. Accordingly, in circumstances where the ELP Policy aligns or is consistent with the national standards, the practical effect of the applicant not meeting the standard set by the ELP Policy is that she has not met the national professional standards.
  3. [22]
    This ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 3

  1. [23]
    Ground 3 of the appeal is that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the ELP Policy. The relevant part of the policy provides:

Individual assessment will be undertaken on applications received from applicants previously registered with the [College]; and where:

  1. •
    the applicant has not taught in an Australian school for one year in the past five years, and/or
  1. •
    the applicant has resided in a country other than an exempt country for a significant period of time since the last English language proficiency test results;

as the [College] needs to be satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements for professional practice prescribed under [s 9 of the Regulation].

  1. [24]
    The applicant’s submission as to the proper interpretation of this part of the policy was discussed by the Tribunal Member at first instance, as follows:
  1. [37]
    A further ground of attack on application of the Policy raised by Ms Norton, is the language of the Policy concerning its application to re-applicants. This point concerns the conjunctive 'and/or' on the requirement for ELP, between the criteria (set out above in my description of the Policy) that the applicant has not taught in an Australian school for one year in the past five years, and the second of them, that the applicant has resided in a country other than an exempt country for a significant period of time since their last ELP test results.
  1. [38]
    Ms Norton's criticism of the language of the conjunctive means that the Policy omits what happens when an applicant does not meet the 'and/or' of the two categories of re-applicant. She says the assumption would be that a re-applicant of that kind would be exempt from ELP, but the Policy does not say that. I think the correct reading of that part of the Policy, including the conjunctive, is that a person who does not fall within either of those criteria is not required to pass an ELP test. For example, a teacher who has taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years, would not be required to pass an ELP test.
  1. [39]
    Ms Norton goes on to submit that the effect [of] the conjunctive means that either criterion can be used. She says the two criteria are written in the negative and an exemption can not be given when a re-applicant has not taught for one year in the previous five years and/or resided in a country other than an exempt country.
  1. [40]
    I think that reading of the Policy is correct, even though it has adverse consequences for Ms Norton. The conjunctive means that the College has a discretion to require a re-applicant to provide a successful ELP test result if either the re-applicant has not taught in an Australian school for one year in the past five years or has resided in a country other than an exempt country for a significant period of time since their last ELP test. It also means that a re-applicant who falls within either criterion can be required to provide a successful ELP test result. A re-applicant who does not fall within either of those criteria is not required to provide an ELP test result.
  1. [41]
    Ms Norton says that she has predominantly resided in English speaking countries since her last registration in 2006. She has not resided in any non-exempt country for a significant period of time. That may be so, but she does not contest that she has not taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years. On the language of the ‘Re-applicant' part of the Policy, she can be required to provide a successful ELP test result on that criterion alone, in the discretion of the College. The fact that she has not resided in a country other than an exempt country for a significant period of time since her last ELP test result does not prevent the College, in the exercise of its discretion, from requiring a successful test result, solely on the criterion that she had not taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years.
  1. [25]
    The applicant refers to the last part of [38]:

I think the correct reading of that part of the Policy, including the conjunctive, is that a person who does not fall within either of those criteria is not required to pass an ELP test. For example, a teacher who has taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years, would not be required to pass an ELP test.

  1. [26]
    She submits that if a person who has taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years is not required to pass an ELP test, then logically it follows that if a person has resided in an exempt country for the relevant period they also are not required to take the test. In other words, if a person does not fall within either one or other of the alternatives then they are not required to take the ELP test.
  2. [27]
    However, that part of the ELP Policy is not framed in the negative; that is, in terms of when an assessment will not be required. If it were so framed, the conjunctive ‘and/or’ might well indicate that an assessment would not be required in either of those events. However, the ELP Policy is framed in terms of requiring an assessment where either or both the teaching or residential requirements have not been satisfied.
  3. [28]
    In the present case, as found by the Tribunal Member at first instance, the applicant has not taught in an Australian school for one year in the previous five years. On that basis, in terms of the policy, and by reference to the national professional standards, she may be required to undertake the assessment.
  4. [29]
    It remains that as framed the policy provision is confusing. First, it is not assisted by the fact that the first dot point is framed in the negative and the second in the positive. Second, the interrelationship between the two dot points is unclear. For example, what would be the position if the applicant had taught in an Australian school for one or more years in the past five years and yet had resided in a non-exempt country for a ‘significant’ period of time since the last English language proficiency test results? Good policy should be such that it can be applied fairly and consistently.
  5. [30]
    Nevertheless, for the reasons outlined above, this ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 4

  1. [31]
    Ground 4 of the appeal is that the applicant was denied procedural fairness in that the College spuriously obtained IELTS results from the applicant, and the College and the Tribunal made improper use of the results in refusing provisional registration.
  2. [32]
    The relevant chain of events is set out in the reasons of the Tribunal Member, as follows:[9]
    1. (a)
      On 17 July 2019, the College required the applicant to provide evidence of her English language assessment by 17 September 2019, in order for the College to decide her application for registration.
    2. (b)
      The applicant requested an extension of time. On 9 September 2019, the College advised the applicant that the information must be received by 17 October 2019.
    3. (c)
      On 27 September 2019, the applicant advised the College that she had received her IELTS result, stating ‘I am short by 0.5’. She further stated that she was requesting a review and re-mark of the result and that that process takes a couple of months. Accordingly, she requested a further extension of time.
    4. (d)
      On 9 October 2019, the College asked the applicant to provide a copy of her IELTS test report and stated: ‘Once it has been received, I will advise whether a further extension is approved’. The report was sent by the applicant to the College on the same day.
    5. (e)
      However, without further advice to the applicant, on 23 October 2019 the applicant was advised that her application for provisional registration was refused on the basis of the IELTS results.
  3. [33]
    It is submitted that the IELTS results should not have been relied upon because they were obtained and used by the College for an improper purpose; that is, for a purpose other than that disclosed in the email by the College requesting disclosure of the information. The applicant states that she would not have provided the results as part of the application, for obvious reasons. The application for an extension of time was made to enable the undertaking of a re-mark.
  4. [34]
    It is submitted that the spurious obtaining of the IELTS results by the College and the denial of the opportunity to obtain a re-mark constituted a denial of procedural fairness.
  5. [35]
    The Tribunal Member noted that in an affidavit filed by the College it was stated that  ‘… in our experience it was rare for IELTS to raise scores following a review and remark’, but also noted that there was no evidence that this view was put to the applicant for comment.[10] The Tribunal Member further stated that, on the College’s own evidence, this view influenced the decision to refuse an extension of time and that a re-mark being ‘rare’ does not preclude the possibility that sometimes there are successful re-marks.[11] Also, as evidenced by the correspondence noted above, the applicant was entitled to believe that she was submitting the information purely for the purpose of assessing her application for an extension of time.
  6. [36]
    However, as also noted by the Tribunal Member, the applicant sought an internal review of the original decision of the College, at which review she could and did submit further material.[12] That further material did not include evidence of any re-mark.[13] Further, no evidence of a re-mark was provided to the Tribunal on external review.[14]
  7. [37]
    There appears to be good reason for the applicant to be concerned by the approach taken by the College. She says she now has the stigma of having her application rejected and, as a practical result, in the future should she apply for teacher registration anywhere, inevitably she will be required to state whether any previous application for registration has been rejected. While it may be that not all relevant facts are before the Tribunal, it might be that an application for judicial review before the Supreme Court of the decision of the College to proceed with the internal review in the circumstances outlined would have been open. However, that course was not taken.
  8. [38]
    The difficulty for the applicant is that the Tribunal conducts a review of the decision of the College by way of a fresh hearing on the merits: see s 20(2) of the QCAT Act.  Accordingly, any denial of procedural fairness on the part of the original decision-maker can be rectified in any merits review proceedings. There was no issue of procedural fairness in relation to the merits review before the Tribunal. Ms Norton engaged with the external review process before the Tribunal and she had the opportunity to provide any relevant information or material to the Tribunal.
  9. [39]
    In conducting a merits review, the Tribunal does not have a supervisory role in the sense of determining whether there has been any error on the part of the decision-maker, including in relation to processes undertaken. That is the role of the Supreme Court in undertaking judicial review of administrative decisions. As noted by Smithers J in Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs,[15] the Tribunal is authorised and required to review the actual decision, not the reasons for it.
  10. [40]
    In the present case, the question for the Tribunal was confined to whether, on the material and evidence before it, Ms Norton met the criteria for provisional registration as a teacher. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 5

  1. [41]
    Ground 5 of the appeal is that there was a denial of procedural fairness in that the ELP Policy was not readily available to the applicant and she was not aware that it was being used to assess her application. It is submitted that the policy was not ‘readily’ available on the College website. This submission was addressed in the reasons of the Tribunal Member at first instance:
  1. [35]
    The next ground of attack on application of the Policy is that Ms Norton submits that the Policy was 'purely used as an internal document'. She also says that she was not aware that a policy was being used to assess her application, even though the Policy states that it is to provide applicants and College officers with information about how applicants must meet ELP as a requirement for professional practice. She also says that the policy was not readily available on the College website.
  1. [36]
    In my view, this submission is somewhat disingenuous. After all, Ms Norton undertook the IELTS English proficiency assessment mandated by the Policy. Also, she does not state what searches she undertook to find the Policy on the College website. She does not say it is not available on the website, only that it is 'not readily available', whatever that may mean. By contrast, the affidavit of Ms Cole says that the details of the Policy are available on the College website, giving the URL link to it. I reject this ground of attack on application of the Policy.
  1. [42]
    In her written submissions, the applicant refers to the affidavit of Ms Cole and notes that the policy does not appear at the given website address; only details of the ELP, not the policy itself. However, that is not inconsistent with what was said by the Tribunal Member, noted at [36] of his reasons.
  2. [43]
    In any event, it is clear that the applicant was aware of the ELP Policy prior to the Tribunal hearing, again bearing in mind that the Tribunal was conducting a fresh hearing on the merits. This ground of appeal also is rejected.

Ground 6

  1. [44]
    The sixth ground of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in declining to make recommendations to the chief executive of the College in accordance with s 24(3) of the QCAT Act. Section 24(3) provides:

The tribunal may make, to the chief executive of the entity in which the reviewable decision was made, written recommendations about the policies, practices and procedures applying to reviewable decisions of the same kind.

  1. [45]
    The requested recommendations stemmed from what the applicant said were errors arising in the internal review process. First, that a notice given as part of the internal review process was not compliant with the Act because it was given by a person who was not part of the review committee. Second, that a legal officer of the College was involved with and gave assistance to the internal review committee.
  2. [46]
    The first of those issues was not addressed in the reasons for decision, while in relation to the second issue the Tribunal Member expressed the view that there was nothing in the Act that prevented the review committee from obtaining such assistance.[16] The Tribunal Member then stated:[17]

On this aspect of issue 5, Ms Norton seeks to invoke the effect of s 24(3) of the QCAT Act, which allows the Tribunal to make recommendations to the chief executive of the entity in which the relevant reviewable decision is made, about the policies, practices and procedures applying to reviewable decisions of the same kind. She asks the Tribunal to make a recommendation to reduce the College’s influence over the Internal Review Committee. Given my findings on the substantive issue on this aspect, I do not propose to make any such recommendation.

  1. [47]
    The making of any recommendation is at the discretion of the Tribunal Member. There is no indication in the applicant’s submissions as to how it is said that the exercise of the discretion miscarried. Given the Tribunal’s finding in relation to the second issue, which was not directly challenged by the applicant, there is an evident reason for not exercising the discretion. On the other hand, the first issue was not addressed in the reasons for decision. However, as the hearing before the Tribunal was a fresh hearing on the merits, any such procedural irregularity, if there was an irregularity, would not have impacted the decision of the Tribunal Member.
  2. [48]
    As an extension of this ground of appeal, the applicant notes that following discussion of the second issue by the Tribunal Member, it was stated, at [110], ‘This challenge to the internal review decision also fails’. The applicant states that she was not ‘challenging’ any decision and submits that this demonstrates that the Tribunal Member was not conducting a fresh hearing on the merits.
  3. [49]
    This was the only occasion in the course of the reasons for decision that the Tribunal Member made reference to a challenge to the internal review decision. It was made in response to a submission relating to the processes of the internal review committee, which were not directly relevant to the merits review being conducted by the Tribunal. It is evident from the tenor of the reasons for decision that the Tribunal Member well understood the nature of the review being conducted by the Tribunal.
  4. [50]
    This ground of appeal is rejected.

Ground 7

  1. [51]
    The seventh ground of appeal is that the Tribunal erred in accepting and relying upon hearsay evidence; specifically, the affidavit evidence of Ms Cole that the ELP Policy aligned with the required national standards.[18] The applicant did not seek to cross-examine Ms Cole. By s 28(3)(b) and (c) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself in any way it consider appropriate.
  2. [52]
    No error on the part of the Tribunal Member has been demonstrated and this ground of appeal also is rejected.
  3. [53]
    The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [2].

[2]  As to the policy, see ibid, [12]-[17].

[3]  Ibid, [17].

[4]  IELTS is an acronym for International English Language Testing System.

[5]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [18].

[6]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [57].

[7]  Ibid, [5], [59].

[8]Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286; Pearse v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 392, [36]-[37]; Attudawage v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2011] QCAT 452, [10]; Prime Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 [2019] QCAT 389.

[9]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [67]-[92].

[10]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [84]-[85].

[11]  Ibid, [85].

[12]  Ibid, [87]-[89].

[13]  Ibid, [89]-[90].

[14]  Ibid, [91].

[15]  (1979) 24 ALR 577, 599. See also (2008) 235 CLR 286, [141] (Kiefel J).

[16]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [102]-[109].

[17]  Ibid, [111].

[18]Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36, [26]-[27].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Norton v Queensland College of Teachers

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Norton v Queensland College of Teachers

  • MNC:

    [2023] QCATA 61

  • Court:

    QCATA

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Aughterson

  • Date:

    18 May 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
Attudawage v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2011] QCAT 452
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] QCAT 452
Cite 2 - [2011] QCAT 452
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1979) 24 ALR 577
Cite 2 - (1979) 24 ALR 577
Pearse v Medical Board of Australia [2013] QCAT 392
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 392
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 392
Prime Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v The Regulator under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 [2019] QCAT 389
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 389
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 389
Qing Norton v Queensland College of Teachers [2022] QCAT 36
8 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 3 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 4 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 5 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 6 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 7 - [2022] QCAT 36
Cite 8 - [2022] QCAT 36
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 235 CLR 286
Cite 2 - (2008) 235 CLR 286
Cite 3 - (2008) 235 CLR 286

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.