Asikas v Department for Education [2026] SAET 4 (13 January 2026)

Asikas v Department for Education [2026] SAET 4

JURISDICTION: South Australian Employment Court

DECISION OF: His Honour Deputy President Judge Rossi

The applicant sought a review of a decision of the respondent to terminate his employment in the teaching service - The termination of employment was based upon a decision of the Teachers Registration Board (TRB) that the applicant be disqualified from being a registered teacher until further order - The disqualification from being a registered teacher followed findings including a finding that the applicant had engaged in conduct which was both improper and disgraceful - The TRB made additional comments that before it would consider an application for registration in the future, it expected a number of matters would be attended to by the applicant - The findings of the TRB were largely uncontested - The applicant submitted that the respondent erred in failing to allow him time to attend to the steps referred to by the TRB, to make a future application for registration and to have that considered by the TRB - HELD - The decision of the TRB was the correct and preferred decision - Decision of the respondent affirmed - The applicant made further application to restrict publication - Limited reasons given for the application - HELD - The principles to be applied are those set out by the Full Bench in Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department v Montrose (No 2) [2023] SAET 91 - HELD - Embarrassment alone will be insufficient to displace the principle of open justice, being an aspect of s 55 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 - HELD - To the extent the applicant expressed concern that publication of the reasons may unfairly restrict his ability to secure employment as a teacher in the future, the primary consideration is the welfare and best interests of children who are students throughout the State's education system - A restriction in publication may impede the operation of s 49B of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004 which has a purpose of enabling any employer of a teacher to receive prescribed information and documents to perform official functions relating to the health, safety, welfare or wellbeing of a child or a class of children or to manage any risk to a child or class of children that may arise in the recipient's capacity as an employer or provider of teaching services.

McManus v Chief Executive, Department for Education and Child Development [2017] SAET 89

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40

Kruger v South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Disciplinary Committee [2022] SAET 17

Reg. v Teachers Appeal Board (1984) 35 SASR 492

Chief Executive, Department for Education v Warren [2020] SAET 69

Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board (1979) 22 SASR 70

Edwards and Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (2013) 117 SASR 246

Hill v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1997) 191 LSJS 300

Ex parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act (1996) 67 SR (NSW) 448

Executive Director of Health v Lily Creek International Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 258

The Commissioner of Police for the State of South Australia v Beau Amodeo [2023] SALC 50

Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department v Montrose (No 2) [2023] SAET 91

On 16 December 2024 the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (the TRB) made written findings which included findings that the applicant Christopher Asikas (Mr Asikas) engaged in conduct which was both improper and disgraceful and that he was not at the time a fit and proper person to be registered as a teacher. The TRB proceeded to make an order that Mr Asikas be disqualified from being registered as a teacher until further order.
By letter dated 18 March 2025, Mr Asikas was notified of a decision of the respondent Department for Education (the Department) to terminate his employment as an officer of the teaching service. The termination of employment became effective immediately. The decision was expressed to have been made pursuant to the terms of s 120(3)(f) of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 (SA) (the ECS Act). In the letter, the following findings and order of the TRB appeared:
1. That you are guilty of unprofessional conduct (being both disgraceful and improper conduct) contrary to section 33(1)(b) of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004 (the TRS Act);
2. That you are not a fit and proper person to be a registered teacher pursuant to section 33(1)(c) of the TRS Act; and
3. That you are disqualified from being a registered teacher until further order pursuant to section 35(2)(d) of the TRS Act.
By Application for Review (Education) (the application) Mr Asikas sought a review by the Tribunal of the decision to terminate his employment. In the application, Mr Asikas set out the following grounds:
1. Mr Bernardi did not appropriately consider the reasons for decision of the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (the Board) (dated 16 December 2024) and, particularly the "additional comments" of the Board regarding the involvement of an expert psychologist or psychiatrist who could assist it before any further consideration by the Board of a lifting of the disqualification and/or a reconsideration of my fitness and propriety to be registered as a teacher, in the State of South Australia.
2. In failing to give such proper regard to the decision of the Board (dated 16 December 2024), Mr Bernardi has misdirected himself as to the application of section 120(3)(f) of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 and specifically the phrase "the officer is not a registered teacher within the meaning of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004."
3. By letter dated 26 January 2025, I advised Mr Chris Bernardi that I was working to secure an assessment by a forensic psychologist and a subsequent report, to assist the Board in their re-assessment and, that the anticipated assessment date is June 2025 (and that I anticipated providing the report to the Board, shortly thereafter).
4. It is noted that section 120 of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 provides:

(1) The Chief Executive may terminate the employment of an officer of the teaching service on any of the following grounds:

(b) the officer is physically or mentally incapable of performing duties satisfactorily.

(2) However, the employment of an officer of the teaching service may not be terminated under subsection (3)(a) or (b) unless the Chief Executive has taken reasonable steps to find other suitable duties in the public sector of the State to which the officer might be assigned or transferred on conditions that maintain the officer's substantive remuneration level.

5. In my letter dated 26 January 2025, I advised Mr Bernardi that I was willing to continue with work (that did not require me to hold a teacher's registration); and that this would greatly assist me in maintaining meaningful employment until I could return to teaching.

In misdirecting himself in the way that he did, Mr Bernardi has consequently failed to afford me the opportunity to be properly heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the decision to terminate my employment as an officer of the teaching service, in all the circumstances.

4 For the reasons that follow, the application should be dismissed and the decision to terminate the employment of Mr Asikas as an officer of the teaching service of the Department for Education should be affirmed.

The ECS Act became operative on 1 July 2020. It followed the repeal of the former Education Act 1972 (SA) (the E Act).
There are two sections in the ECS Act relevant to the powers conferred upon the Chief Executive of the Education Department to take disciplinary action against an officer of the teaching service in the event of misconduct.[1] Section 114 of the ECS Act addresses disciplinary action and provides:

(1) If the Chief Executive is satisfied that an officer of the teaching service is guilty of misconduct, the Chief Executive may do 1 or more of the following:

(a) reprimand the officer;

(b) reduce the remuneration of the officer under section 116;

(c) vary the duties of the officer;

(d) reclassify the officer;

(e) remove the entitlement of the officer to an increase in remuneration;

(f) impose a fine on the officer not exceeding the amount of 1 week's salary of the officer;

(g) transfer the officer to another position in the teaching service;

(h) suspend an officer of the teaching service from duty without remuneration or accrual of leave rights for a specified period (not exceeding 12 months);

(i) terminate the employment of the officer under section 120.

(2) To avoid doubt, action referred to in subsection (1)(c), (d), (e) or (g) may be taken whether or not the action has the effect of reducing the officer's remuneration.

(3) A fine imposed on an officer of the teaching service under this section may be deducted from the salary or other remuneration payable to that officer.

(4) The regulations may make further provision in respect of disciplinary action under this section for the purposes of this Act.

Section 120 of the ECS Act sets out the circumstances in which the employment of an officer of the teaching service may be terminated and sets out review rights which may be exercised in such circumstances. Section 120 provides:

(a) the volume of work in any section of the teaching service has diminished; and

(b) a reduction in staff of the teaching service has consequently become necessary or appropriate; and

(c) the employment of a specified officer of the teaching service should be terminated for that purpose,

the Chief Executive may terminate the employment of that officer as from the date determined by the Chief Executive.

(2) An officer of the teaching service whose employment is terminated under subsection (1) is entitled to receive -

(a) at least 12 weeks' notice in writing prior to the date of termination; or

(b) if the notice is less than 12 weeks, a sum equal to the officer's salary for the period by which the notice falls short of 12 weeks.

(3) The Chief Executive may terminate the employment of an officer of the teaching service on any of the following grounds:

(a) the officer is excess to the requirements of the teaching service;

(b) the officer is physically or mentally incapable of performing duties satisfactorily;

(c) misconduct;

(d) unsatisfactory performance;

(e) the officer's lack of an essential qualification;

(f) the officer is not a registered teacher within the meaning of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004;

(g) the officer is a prohibited person within the meaning of the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016.

(4) However, the employment of an officer of the teaching service may not be terminated under subsection (3)(a) or (b) unless the Chief Executive has taken reasonable steps to find other suitable duties in the public sector of the State to which the officer might be assigned or transferred on conditions that maintain the officer's substantive remuneration level.

In the E Act, s 26 addressed disciplinary action and where a relevant decision could be the subject of an application to the Tribunal to have the decision reviewed. It provided:

(a) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act; or

(b) contravenes or fails to comply with any lawful direction given to him under this Act; or

(c) is negligent, inefficient or incompetent in the discharge of his duties; or

(d) is absent from duty without proper cause; or

(e) is guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct,

there shall be sufficient cause for disciplinary action against that officer.

(2) Where the Director-General finds that there is sufficient cause for disciplinary action under this section -

(a) he may, by written determination under his hand -

(i) reprimand the officer; or

(ii) impose a fine upon the officer not exceeding the amount of one weeks salary of the officer; or

(iii) reduce the remuneration of the officer by -

(A) transferring the officer to another position in the teaching service; or

(B) varying the officer's duties and classifying or reclassifying the officer; or

(iv) suspend the officer from duty (without pay) for a period not exceeding one year; or

(b) he may recommend to the employing authority that the officer be dismissed from the teaching service.

(3) The employing authority may, upon receipt of a recommendation under subsection (2), dismiss the officer from the teaching service.

(5) An officer may, within 14 days after receiving notice of a determination under this section or a decision made by the employing authority to dismiss the officer under this section (or such longer period as SAET may allow), apply to SAET under Part 3 Division 1 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 for a review of the determination or decision.

(6) In addition to section 30 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014, SAET may, at any stage of proceedings for the review of a decision that has taken effect under this section, revoke the decision and order that the officer be reinstated in the teaching service.

(7) Any fine imposed on an officer under this section may be deducted from the salary or other remuneration payable to that officer.

9 There are differences in text between s 26 of the E Act and ss 114 and 120 of the ECS Act. In the area of misconduct s 26 of the E Act provided that disciplinary action may be taken when an officer, relevantly, was guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct. That has changed in s 114 of the ECS Act to disciplinary action including a termination of employment of the officer where the Chief Executive is satisfied that an officer of the teaching service is guilty of misconduct. The word "misconduct" is not defined in the ECS Act. A second textual difference is that s 120 of the ECS Act now includes, in s 120(3), categories other than misconduct which may entitle termination of the employment of an officer of the teaching service, which may be separate from but possibly related to, misconduct. Section 120(3)(f) and (g) are such grounds. The differing grounds are also significant in the context of s 120(4) of the ECS Act. Relevantly, the duty upon the Chief Executive to take reasonable steps to find other suitable duties in the public sector is expressed to arise in circumstances of misconduct as a ground under s 120(3)(a) or (b) but not where there is a termination of employment on the ground set out in s 120(3)(c) or (f).

The textual difference between "disgraceful or improper conduct" and "misconduct" did not assume significance in this case. Mr Asikas accepted that his conduct had been serious enough to warrant deregistration for a time and that his conduct gave rise to the exercise of a discretion as to whether to terminate the contract of employment. Apart from a finding in relation to one allegation, Mr Asikas accepted the findings of the TRB. He did not challenge the finding that his conduct was both improper and disgraceful. His case was that the Department, through its decision maker Mr Bernardi, had erred in the exercise of the discretion because it had failed to have adequate regard to the finding of the TRB that the circumstances did not exclude the possibility of Mr Asikas demonstrating sufficient insight into his past misbehaviour and demonstrating improvement to the point of being a fit and proper person to return to the teaching service. The case for Mr Asikas was that, in all the circumstances, alternative duties should have been found for him upon the cancellation of his registration and that he should have been afforded a sufficient amount of time to receive counselling, to make application for re-registration and, if successful, for him then to be returned to the teaching service. Alternatively, he contended the suspension imposed should have continued pending determination of an application to the TRB to be registered again. This will be addressed in more detail later in these reasons.
The second textual difference, relating to the interaction between s 120(3) and (4) of the ECS Act was relied upon by the Department in its submission that the basis of the termination of employment was the deregistration within the meaning of the Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004 (the TRS Act), and in such circumstances there was no obligation upon the Department to find Mr Asikas other suitable duties within the Department. That too will be addressed later in these reasons.
Section 124 of the ECS Act provides for review by this Tribunal of certain decisions and determinations. Subsection 124(1) provides generally for an officer of the teaching service who is aggrieved with a decision or determination of the Chief Executive under Part 9 to apply to the Tribunal under Part 3 Division 1 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (the SAET Act) for a review of the decision or determination. Part 3 Division 1 of the SAET Act establishes the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 27 addresses the general nature of proceedings and provides:

(1) Subject to a relevant Act, a matter under this Division will be dealt with by the Tribunal as a review of the decision that constitutes the matter.

(2) Where the review of a decision is to be undertaken, the person or body that made or is taken to have made the decision is the decision‑maker for the purposes of these provisions.

(3) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), the Tribunal will examine the decision of the decision‑maker by way of rehearing.

(4) On a rehearing, the Tribunal must reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to the decision of the original decision‑maker.

(a) an examination of the evidence or material before the decision‑maker (unless any such evidence or material is to be excluded under another provision of this Act or under any other law); and

(b) a consideration of any further evidence or material that the Tribunal decides, in the circumstances of the particular case, to admit for the purposes of rehearing the matter.

(6) In dealing with a matter under this Division, the Tribunal is to deal with the matter in accordance with this Act and any relevant Act.

(8) Furthermore, a relevant Act may modify the operation of this Act in relation to a matter that comes within the exercise of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under this Division.

The Department raised the different labels utilised in earlier decisions of this Tribunal in describing the nature of the review created by s 27 of the SAET Act. In McManus v Chief Executive, Department for Education and Child Development (McManus)[2] Hannon DPJ considered whether the review was in the nature of an appeal by way of rehearing or an appeal by way of a hearing de novo. In considering the distinguishing features between the two, Hannon DPJ referred to the following statement of the High Court in Allesch v Maunz:[3]

For present purposes, the critical difference between an appeal by way of rehearing and a hearing de novo is that, in the former case, the powers of the appellate court are exercisable only where the applicant can demonstrate that, having regard to all the evidence now before the appellate court, the order that is the subject of the appeal is the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error, whereas, in the latter case, those powers may be exercised regardless of error.[4]

Having concluded that the form of review created by s 27 does not require the Tribunal to be persuaded of error in order to set aside the decision under review, Hannon DPJ concluded that the process retains the essential features of an appeal by way of rehearing de novo.[5]
In Kruger v South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Disciplinary Committee[6] Cole DP referred to the reasoning in McManus and then stated that a different construction of a similar review provision was given by Parker J in re Re AKS.[7] In Re AKS Parker J construed the review provided by s 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. That provision required that the Tribunal arrive at the correct or preferable decision, and in doing so, must have regard to and give appropriate weight to the decision of the Tribunal at first instance. Parker J held that the requirement to give appropriate weight to the decision at first instance distinguished the internal review under s 70 from an appeal de novo. He observed that in an appeal de novo the decision at first instance would not be relevant because the court decides the matter afresh and its role is not limited to the identification of error. Although he referred to the procedure followed by the Tribunal as being analogous to a court deciding an appeal by way of rehearing in that it relies upon the evidence received at first instance (subject to the discretion to admit further evidence) and must also have regard to the decision made at first instance, he also contrasted the review conducted by the Tribunal from an appeal by way of rehearing because when the Tribunal determines an internal review it is not required to find error of fact or law before quashing or varying a decision or remitting the matter for rehearing. It may do so if it concludes that the preferable decision was not made.[8]
In my view, the legislature has created by s 27 a form of review that does not readily fit into one of the classic categories and contains hybrid features of an appeal by way of rehearing and an appeal by way of rehearing de novo. It is well recognised that it is open to the legislature to do so.[9]
Section 27 of the SAET Act provides a procedure whereby the Tribunal reviews the evidence that was before the decision maker, may receive further evidence, and is required to reach the correct or preferrable decision. Whilst it must have regard to the decision of the original decision-maker, error is not required to be proven for the Tribunal to set aside the decision being reviewed.
Section 30 sets out the powers of the Tribunal upon a review of a decision. It provides:

(a) affirm the decision that is being reviewed; or

(b) vary the decision that is being reviewed; or

(c) set aside the decision being reviewed and -

(i) substitute its own decision; or

(ii) send the matter back to the decision‑maker for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations that the Tribunal considers appropriate,

and, in any case, may make any order the Tribunal considers appropriate (including any interim order pending the reconsideration and determination of the matter by the decision‑maker, or any ancillary or consequential order, that the Tribunal considers appropriate).

(2) The fact that a decision is made on reconsideration under subsection (1)(c)(ii) does not prevent the decision from being open to review by the Tribunal.

(3) The decision‑maker's decision as affirmed or varied by the Tribunal or a decision that the Tribunal substitutes for the decision‑maker's decision -

(a) is to be regarded as, and given effect as, a decision of the decision‑maker; and

(b) unless the relevant Act states otherwise or the Tribunal orders otherwise, is to be regarded as having effect, from the time when the decision reviewed would have, or would have had, effect.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3)(a), the decision‑maker has power to do anything necessary to implement the Tribunal's decision.

(5) Despite subsection (3)(a), the decision as affirmed, varied or substituted is not again open to review before the Tribunal as a decision of the decision‑maker (but may be subject to appeal under this Act).

Subsection 20(1) of the TRS Act proscribes working as a teacher for remuneration unless the person is a registered teacher. It provides:

(1) A person must not, for payment or other consideration, personally provide, or offer to provide, pre-school education, or primary or secondary education, unless the person is a registered teacher.

Much of the factual background was not in dispute. Both Mr Asikas and the Department provided the Tribunal with Books of Documents which set out the relevant background. Other documents including an affidavit of Mr Asikas and an affidavit of Mr Bernardi were also received in evidence. In the circumstances I will only set out in these reasons what is necessary to understand the decision.
Mr Asikas was born on 7 February 1984. Mr Asikas obtained registration as a teacher under the TRS Act on 17 November 2011. That registration continued until it expired on 31 January 2024. The expiration occurred in circumstances of Mr Asikas having come to the attention of the TRB after he was charged with two counts of aggravated stalking on 25 November 2022. Whilst those charges were later withdrawn the investigation undertaken by the TRB resulted in a complaint being laid by the Registrar dated 18 March 2024, a subsequent hearing before a Sub-Committee of the TRB, and written reasons for decision of the TRB dated 16 December 2024. The reasons included a decision that Mr Asikas be disqualified from being registered as a teacher until further order pursuant to s 35(2)(d) of the TRS Act. Mr Asikas did not seek a review of that decision.
The evidence indicates that Mr Asikas first engaged in inappropriate conduct whilst a student teacher. He had been placed at an all girls college. By reference to an undertaking provided by Mr Asikas to the TRB dated 19 January 2015, he admitted to making inappropriate comments of an overly familiar nature in approximately 91 emails sent during a six week placement period. The exchange of emails was with various students. The exchanges occurred both during and outside of school hours with some exchanges having occurred during weekends. Mr Asikas admitted to providing the students with his personal email address and that he made personal disclosures to them. The outcome was a suspension from his studies for a period of three years and an undertaking to participate in an Ethics Course.
Mr Asikas was in an interpersonal relationship with a woman MW between around January 2020 and February 2021. Mr Asikas ended the relationship with MW after she engaged in conduct which he found unacceptable. Thereafter, they initially maintained an amicable relationship and it appears Mr Asikas may have had some hopes of a reconciliation between them but in early March 2021 MW told him that she did not wish to reconcile the relationship. In its reasons for decision the TRB, by its convened panel, set out in some detail Mr Asikas' inappropriate conduct towards MW thereafter. Notwithstanding MW's clear statement that the relationship was at an end, Mr Asikas persisted in frequently contacting her and against her wishes. His conduct included sending an abusive message on 22 March 2021, which stated "you are a fucking slut just like your mum". Apart from frequently sending MW unsolicited and unwelcome messages, he would at times present himself either on the street or at premises where he knew or suspected that MW would be in attendance. On 15 May 2021 he was spoken to by police who told him of MW's concerns. Specifically, the police officer told Mr Asikas that his behaviour was causing MW harm and fear. Mr Asikas' response included "I'd like to say that women need to be accountable for their own actions". At times, Mr Asikas sent messages, documents and a PowerPoint presentation to MW which indicated how strongly he had felt about their interpersonal relationship. In October 2022 he left a note on MW's car stating that "I wanted you to be my wife. I loved you." Mr Asikas admitted that on one occasion he stated to MW something along the lines of "most women I wouldn't even piss on if they were on fire".
Allegations were also raised by the Registrar in relation to Mr Asikas' interactions with other women. Mr Asikas admitted that he met a woman in 2018 and, subsequently in 2019, would attend the clothing store where she worked at least once every one to two months and would look at the woman for longer than he should have. He accepted his actions were likely to have made her feel uncomfortable. On another occasion he attended upon a woman in a Myer store, looked at her for longer than he should have and he accepted before the TRB that he would have made the woman feel uncomfortable. In addition, he admitted that behaviour was after he had left, apparently unsolicited, his personal details with the woman on the first occasion that he attended upon her at the Myer store.
On another occasion, he met a woman at another store and later returned to ask her out for a coffee. He admitted that on subsequent occasions he had been in the woman's vicinity and had been seen by the woman. Mr Asikas subsequently admitted that approaching women in non-social spaces was inappropriate.
Overall there were four women who were subjected to similar inappropriate behaviour by Mr Asikas.
The Registrar alleged that that Mr Asikas had been involved in another relevant incident in 2018. Mr Asikas was alleged to have been involved in an altercation with a 71 year old woman. Mr Asikas referred to the incident as a "once off" and denied acting in an inappropriate way. The TRB observed that Mr Asikas' behaviour had been significant enough for the woman to have attended a police station and to have made a formal report to South Australia Police. The TRB found that Mr Asikas did have an altercation with the woman as had been alleged by the Registrar. Mr Asikas has since maintained he did not act inappropriately towards the 71 year old woman. The other incidents involving the other women that are referred to above were also found to have been proven by the TRB. Mr Asikas has not challenged the findings of the TRB in relation to those four women.
Having made its findings, the TRB then characterised the conduct by reference to whether it amounted to unprofessional conduct as defined in s 3 of the TRS Act_._ The TRB noted that such conduct is defined to include "disgraceful or improper conduct". The TRB noted that Mr Asikas admitted his conduct was unprofessional conduct within the ambit of s 33(1) on the basis of it being improper conduct. He urged the TRB to find that it did not amount to disgraceful conduct. The TRB referred to the judgment of the Full Court in Reg. v Teachers Appeal Board.[10] The Court held that it was not necessary, before disciplinary action could be undertaken against a teacher under the relevant provision, for the disgraceful or improper conduct to relate to the teacher's professional capacity as a teacher. It also held that it was not necessary for the conduct to be both disgraceful and improper. Walters J addressed the meaning of the word "disgraceful" and stated:

Although the term "disgraceful" is not "in any sense a word of art [and in] accordance with the usual rule it is to be given its natural and popular meaning" (Hughes v Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom, per Devlin J. (as he then was) at p 561), I venture to think that one may reasonably assign to the word "disgraceful" a meaning which implies something that is so dishonourable or disreputable as to warrant strong reprobation.[11]

The TRB also referred to a decision of a Full Bench of this Tribunal in Chief Executive, Department for Education v Warren (Warren).[12] There, the Full Bench found Mr Warren's conduct of stalking, in the particular circumstances found, to have been disgraceful.[13] In concluding that Mr Asikas' conduct was disgraceful, the TRB drew attention to what it described as "abhorrent language" used in communications with MW and the persistent and fear inducing nature of Mr Asikas' conduct towards not only MW but also the other women referred to in the complaint.
The TRB then addressed whether Mr Asikas was, at the time of the TRB's decision, a fit and proper person to be a registered teacher pursuant to s 33(1)(c) of the TRS Act_._ The TRB addressed the "fit and proper person" test both generally and specifically in the circumstances of a teacher. The TRB referred to the judgment of Walters J in Sobey v Commercial and Private Agents Board.[14] The judgment addressed the standard of fitness required of an applicant for a licence under the Commercial and Private Agents Act, 1972-1978. Walters J identified the relevant approach, when considering the question of fitness and propriety to hold a licence, to look at the relevant definitions as appeared in s 5 of the Act. It included executing legal processes and distress for the recovery of rates, taxes or monies, on behalf of any other person. Walters J then stated in relation to the meaning of fitness and propriety:

...what is meant by that expression is that an applicant must show not only that he is possessed of a requisite knowledge of the duties and responsibilities devolving upon him as the holder of the particular licence under the Act, but also that he is possessed of sufficient moral integrity and rectitude of character as to permit him to be safely accredited to the public without further inquiry, as a person to be entrusted with the sort of work which the licence entails.[15]

A similar approach was adopted by Gray J in Edwards and Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (Edwards)[16] when considering the question of a "fit and proper person" to grant registration under the TRS Act. Gray J held that the meaning of a fit and proper person is in the context of the objects found in s 4 which are to:

Establish and maintain a teacher registration system and professional standards for teachers to safeguard the public interest in there being a teaching profession whose members are competent educators and fit and proper persons to have the care of children.[17]

Gray J referred to as important that s 7 is entitled "Primary consideration in performance of functions" and that it provides that the TRB must have the welfare and best interests of children as its primary consideration in the performance of its functions. Gray J held that the section imposes an overarching legislative obligation upon the TRB. That is, in determining an application for registration, the TRB's primary consideration is the welfare and best interests of children.[18]
Gray J observed that the care of a child includes more than the child being taught by a competent educator. It includes attending to the welfare and best interests of the child.[19]
In its reasons for decision, the TRB then referred to an observation made in Warren that the education of school students is not confined to the curriculum and may involve questions regarding prevailing social issues.[20]
The TRB did not view Mr Asikas' conduct as being isolated. Rather, it characterised his conduct as part of a continuum of behaviour. The TRB then added:

That behaviour has involved ignoring social boundaries and ignoring the wellbeing and safety of women that he seeks to be in a relationship with. The respondent pursued his interest in, and access to, those women even in spite of clear rejections from the women and, in some cases, in the face of stalking cautions from SAPOL.[21]

The TRB found Mr Asikas not to be a fit and proper person for registration. It disqualified him from being registered as a teacher until further order pursuant to s 35(2)(d) of the TRS Act_._
The TRB was conscious of the possibility of an application to be re-registered in the future. It made some additional comments of what would be expected before any consideration by the TRB of a lifting of the disqualification and/or a reconsideration of Mr Asikas' fitness and propriety to be registered as a teacher. It referred to the need of an expert psychologist or psychiatrist to assist the board to understand:
1. The reasons for the behaviour;
2. Whether the behaviour is a symptom of a clinical condition;
3. What treatment might be necessary (if any);
4. Whether the respondent has developed an appropriate level of insight regarding the impugned behaviour; and
5. Whether the behaviour will be repeated in the future.

Mr Asikas was not required for cross-examination. His evidence was received by way of affidavit affirmed on 23 October 2025 and some further brief oral evidence. Mr Asikas referred to coming from a family deeply entrenched in the field of education. Whilst he initially undertook and completed a Bachelor of Civil and Environmental Engineering degree, he determined that his true calling was in education and commenced his studies in that field.
He referred to the email transmissions that he sent to several students whilst a student teacher and expressed deep regret and shame for those actions. He resolved to commit himself to returning to teaching. Mr Asikas set out his history of teaching thereafter until the proceeding initiated by the Registrar of the TRB. His evidence included references to initiatives that he has taken which, as I understand his evidence, has contributed to the quality of the education received by students under his care.
Mr Asikas addressed his conduct towards MW. He referred to the end of that relationship as heartbreaking for him. He accepts that the reasons for decision of the TRB accurately sets out conduct that he admitted at the time was inappropriate. He admits that he ignored a police warning not to communicate with MW and he has acknowledged to this Tribunal that his text messages to her would have likely caused her fear. He has now expressed regret for his actions towards MW.
In relation to the conduct directed to other women referred to earlier in these reasons and considered by the TRB, Mr Asikas' evidence was that:

My intention for initiating communication with these women was to ask them out for coffee and get to know them. I was not attempting to initiate anything other than friendly communication with each of these four women and I would like to stress that this was my intention with each of the four women. I have since realised that it is inappropriate to approach women like I did whilst they are at work.

The only finding of the TRB that Mr Asikas does not accept is the finding relating to the altercation with the 71 year old woman referred to earlier in these reasons. When the TRB raised its concerns, Mr Asikas sought counselling with a social worker counsellor Mr Peter Ellis. In addition, he completed 30 hours of paid professional development sessions with Relationships Australia and at the Australian Institute of Social Relations in relation to domestic violence and respectful communication. Mr Asikas stated that, as a result, he developed a far greater insight into the proper ways of communicating with a partner and the significant stressors experienced by women in the areas of coercive control and financial, emotional and physical abuse.
Since the decision of the TRB, Mr Asikas has been assessed by two forensic psychologists, namely Mr Richard Balfour and Dr Michael Proeve. In his affidavit evidence Mr Asikas states that the time spent with Mr Balfour has enabled him to discuss and process his emotions in a positive way. He referred to the opinion of Dr Balfour that Mr Asikas had engaged in stalking behaviour and was at moderate risk of engaging in further stalking behaviour without treatment. Mr Asikas expressed surprise at Mr Balfour's recommendation of between 10 to 20 one hour therapy sessions to improve Mr Asikas' insight in relation to his stalking behaviour. Mr Asikas stated that, nevertheless, he viewed the recommendation as an opportunity to make him a better teacher and immediately took steps to undergo the treatment. The sessions were with Dr Proeve. As at the time of his affidavit, Mr Asikas had completed four sessions. He referred to a fifth session scheduled for 28 October which he expected at the time would be the final session. In his oral evidence he stated that he had completed five sessions and that it was envisaged that two to three more sessions would be required.[22] Mr Asikas referred to the sessions with Dr Proeve as having reinforced the importance of respecting others and of finding ways to manage anger and hurt in a positive way. The sessions have also been directed to Mr Asikas being mindful of how and where he approaches women to ask them out and to be aware of how his conduct may be perceived by others even if his intent is innocent.
Mr Asikas summarised his current position:

82. As difficult as the last three years have been, I have learned a lot from my experience and believe that I am a better person, and will be a better teacher if allowed to return, as a result. Through my professional development courses and formal counselling sessions since this process began - courses and sessions which have had a time commitment of well over 50 hours - I have become far more conscious of how women interpret interactions with men and of how my own, specific conduct would have impacted upon [MW] and the other women the subject of the conduct complained about and how it would have made them feel.

83. Looking ahead, I'm committed to continuing my contributions to education and inspiring future generations. I remain dedicated to classroom teaching. Teaching offers creative outlets, allowing me to design curriculum materials and prepare students for standardised tests. I believe my diverse professional background can enrich students' understanding of real-world contexts beyond the classroom.

Mr Asikas stated in his evidence that he would be prepared to return to work with the Department in a non-teaching role or would agree to be placed on leave without pay until such time as he is able to reapply for registration as a teacher and have that application determined by the TRB. In his oral evidence he stated that he would have been prepared to have been placed on leave without pay at the time the Department decided to terminate his employment but there is no evidence of that position having been communicated to the Department at the time Mr Bernardi was considering whether to terminate Mr Asikas' employment. At that time, Mr Asikas' position, as expressed in writing to Mr Bernardi, was that he should be placed on alternate duties with remuneration.[23] I also note that the oral evidence of a preparedness to be placed on leave without pay was expressed to have been conditional upon "some sort of timeline to return", which I understood to be a return to paid employment.[24]
In his report, Mr Balfour expressed the opinion that Mr Asikas' obsessional personality traits, unrealistic idealism about relationships with women, and loneliness were responsible for his stalking behaviour. Mr Balfour referred to the importance of managing the obsessional personality traits and concluded that with the assistance of a rehabilitation programme that specifically addresses the stalking behaviour, the prognosis to cease stalking would be fair. That opinion was expressed by reference to a prognosis rating score of poor, fair and good. He set out eleven reasons for reaching that conclusion. It is not necessary to traverse those reasons in detail. It is to be noted, however, that Mr Balfour did not address in those reasons the inappropriate behaviour of Mr Asikas when he was a student teacher which resulted in a suspension for three years. The detail is not otherwise referred to in his report. In reason seven of the eleven reasons given, Mr Balfour stated:

As a fully registered teacher, I could find no evidence that he has engaged in role boundary violations with pupils.

In his report, Dr Proeve addressed Mr Asikas' behaviour towards MW after the relationship ended. He referred to the typology of stalking behaviour developed by Professor Mullen and colleagues, which had also been utilised by Mr Balfour. Dr Proeve agreed with Mr Balfour's assessment that Mr Asikas' behaviour was consistent with the Rejected Stalker type. He noted that in many cases Rejected Stalker's present as ambivalent regarding the victim and sometimes appear to want the relationship back, while at other times they are angry and want revenge. Dr Proeve agreed with Mr Balfour that whilst Mr Asikas presented with obsessional personality traits, he did not meet sufficient criteria for the diagnosis of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. Dr Proeve considered the aspects of Mr Azikas' personality, those of stubbornness and inflexibility, had contributed to the persistence of his inappropriate behaviour towards MW. Dr Proeve saw some benefit in further treatment assistance regarding relationship expectations, managing negotiation and conflict in relationships, and managing strong emotions which arise in the context of a relationship.
He addressed the risk of similar behaviour in the future. Dr Proeve noted a lack of significant mental health problems that may affect Mr Asikas' judgement at this time. He observed that the consequences of similar behaviour in the future upon Mr Asikas' teaching career would be likely to have a significant deterrent effect for future stalking behaviour. Dr Proeve considers Mr Asikas to have developed now a much greater understanding of socially acceptable behaviour than he previously had and is therefore likely to be able to engage in socially acceptable dating approach behaviour. In these circumstances he concluded that the prognosis for Mr Asikas to desist from stalking behaviour is fair to good. Dr Proeve acknowledged that his opinion is by reference to the history he obtained from Mr Asikas. He also tempered his opinion by stating that if Mr Asikas were to enter into an intimate relationship and experience similar emotional distress and values conflicts to those he experienced with MW, there is the possibility that he could engage in similar behaviour. Dr Proeve was provided with a copy of the reasons for decision of the TRB and he acknowledges having received that document. He does not refer to the conduct whilst a student teacher that resulted in a suspension for some three years. The treatment he administered was directed to his behaviour towards MW and the other women referred to in these reasons.
Mr Bourne, who appeared for Mr Asikas, submitted that there is no suggestion upon the evidence or reporting that Mr Asikas constitutes a risk to children. Reference was made to the misconduct being outside of the school setting and not with respect to females under the age of 18. In relation to the earlier conduct whilst Mr Asikas was a student teacher, Mr Bourne submitted the evidence demonstrated Mr Asikas had bounced back from that episode in his life. It was contended that the Tribunal could be satisfied upon the evidence that Mr Asikas can again bounce back from his current set back.
Reference was made to the view of Mr Balfour that Mr Asikas has obsessive personality traits which have contributed to the misconduct. The Tribunal was urged to accept the opinion of Mr Balfour that such obsessional traits can be well managed and can support long term commitments, although it was acknowledged that that Mr Balfour also expressed the view that such traits, if left unchecked, may contribute to rigid control and dynamics. Mr Bourne referred to the sessions with Dr Proeve and that Mr Asikas will continue with such further sessions as may be necessary to enable him to manage the obsessional personality traits.
Mr Bourne accepted that there is no positive legislative obligation upon a decision-maker to consider or try to find alternative duties whilst a deregistered teacher undertakes the process of seeking re-registration but submitted that, in accordance with well established legal principles where an employer is considering the option of a termination of the contract of employment, such option is a last resort. It was contended that in those circumstances there is no need for Parliament to have provided a statutory obligation to consider other options before proceeding to a termination of the contract of employment.
Mr Bourne drew attention to the reasons for decision of the TRB which did not foreclose an application for re-registration. It was contended that the TRB could have set a minimum period of deregistration before an application could be made for re-registration but chose not to do so. As I understood the submission, the Tribunal should construe the approach of the TRB as it being prepared to consider an application for re-registration as soon as the matters identified by it and referred to earlier in these reasons had been attended to by Mr Asikas. A concern was raised that termination of employment in the teaching service would be likely to have catastrophic consequences upon Mr Asikas' career as a teacher. It was submitted that Mr Bernardi erred in failing to either consider or to adequately consider those factors when he determined not to continue a suspension of the employment and to proceed it to terminate it.
The decision of the Full Bench in Warren was referred to and Mr Bourne submitted that there are material factual differences between the facts in Warren and the circumstances of Mr Asikas. Firstly, reference was made to Mr Warren's conduct included driving in a dangerous manner on school grounds and then through a town square in a manner that caused the woman he was chasing to at least feel the need to pull over and put a stop to what was occurring. None of Mr Azikas' conduct relates to any school premises or working as a teacher. Secondly, the seriousness of the conduct with respect to stalking in Warren is much greater than that of Mr Asikas. Thirdly, the Tribunal in Warren concluded that he continued to lack insight in relation to his conduct. This Tribunal has been urged to find that, consistent with the evidence received from Mr Asikas, he now has an appropriate level of insight in relation to his unhelpful behavioural traits and that, consistent with the opinion of Dr Proeve, the risk of Mr Asikas engaging in misconduct in the future and the risk to the care and wellbeing of children is much less.
Mr Bourne referred to the broad powers available to the Chief Executive of the Department to transfer and effect changes to the duties performed by an officer in the teaching service. In addition, Mr Bourne referred to the variety of disciplinary sanctions set out between s 114(1)(a) and (h) of the ECS Act. Mr Bernardi should have considered all of those options and, upon review, Mr Bourne submitted the Tribunal should do so.

The Department relied upon evidence received from the decision-maker Christopher Bernardi. He gave his evidence by way of an affidavit affirmed on 12 November 2025 and some further oral evidence.
Mr Bernardi confirmed that at the time of the decision he held a delegation to exercise the Chief Executive's powers to terminate employment pursuant to s 120 of the ECS Act. He was not challenged in relation to that evidence.
Mr Bernardi addressed the procedural steps undertaken before the decision to terminate Mr Asikas' employment. On 17 January 2025 he received a briefing from Mr Andrew Wells who held the position of Director, Incident Management. That briefing included a series of documents that were contained within the Book of Documents provided to the Tribunal by the Department. In his affidavit Mr Bernardi deposed to have been very concerned about the finding of the TRB that Mr Asikas' conduct was both improper and disgraceful and that he was not a fit and proper person to be registered as a teacher. He noted the consequence was that the order had the effect of disqualifying Mr Asikas from holding a teacher's registration. By reference to those findings Mr Bernardi determined to issue Mr Asikas with a notice of intention to terminate his employment. That notice was dated 23 January 2025. The notice was in the form of a show cause letter which afforded Mr Asikas an opportunity to respond. Mr Bernardi confirms that Mr Asikas did so by letter dated 26 January 2025. Mr Bernardi noted that Mr Asikas had stated in his response that he was "willing and able" to continue working in a capacity not requiring teacher's registration. Mr Bernardi sought advice from the Department's Incident Management Directorate as to whether he was obliged to consider appointing Mr Asikas to another role. Mr Bernardi did not state the content of the advice received but did state that he considered there was no obligation upon him to consider placing Mr Asikas in an alternative position in the circumstances of the findings of the TRB together with the disqualification from holding teacher's registration. Mr Bernardi referred to the requirement of holding teachers' registration as an essential condition of Mr Asikas' employment.
Mr Bernardi was cross-examined. It was pointed out to him that by the time he became involved Mr Asikas had already been on suspension for some two years. Mr Bernardi was unable to recall whether the Department experienced difficulty in assigning other teachers to discharge the role of Mr Asikas during that period. Mr Bernardi also noted that he has overall responsibility for a wide range of matters and he would not be aware of every event that occurs within the State's public education system.[25] In his oral evidence Mr Bernardi stated that based upon advice received from the Crown Solicitor's Office, he was satisfied that he was not obliged to find alternative employment for Mr Asikas in the circumstances of the findings of the TRB, which he referred to as being "extremely serious, very serious".[26]
Mr Bernardi accepted that in a workforce of some 30,000 there are a number of vacancies available from time to time in the Department and that not all of them require teacher's registration.[27]
Mr Bernardi was questioned about the basis of his understanding of the findings of the TRB. Mr Bernardi referred to a letter of the TRB titled "Notice of Outcome of Inquiry". That letter set out the ultimate findings and order of the TRB which appeared at the end of the reasons for decision of the TRB. Mr Bernardi initially stated that he could not recall whether he was provided with any other documentation which supplemented the letter that he read. Ultimately, Mr Bernardi accepted that it is unlikely that he had the reasons for decision of the TRB.[28]
In re-examination, Mr Bernardi acknowledged that apart from the letter of the TRB he also had available to him the minutes of a special meeting of a Sub-Committee of the TRB dated 5 December 2024. Apart from repeating the ultimate findings and order, that document also included additional comments which related to the expectation of the TRB that there would be the involvement of an expert psychologist or psychiatrist before any consideration by the TRB of lifting the disqualification and setting out the matters to be addressed.
Mr Bernardi was also taken to the content of a minute prepared for his consideration which, over several pages, summarised the involvement of South Australia Police in relation to complaints made relating to Mr Asikas' conduct as addressed earlier in these reasons. Mr Bernardi agreed he had that information before him at the time that he made the decision to terminate Mr Asikas' employment.
Ms Ferguson submitted that Mr Asikas no longer holding registration was a breach of an essential condition of his employment. She submitted the consequences for the contract of employment are confirmed by s 120(3)(f) which provides that the absence of registration alone is a sufficient ground to terminate the contract of employment.
The Tribunal was urged to find that there was no obligation upon the Department to seek alternative employment for Mr Asikas pending a possible application for re-registration. Ms Ferguson submitted that the Parliament has expressly considered the circumstances in which the Department should be required to do so. Subsection 120(4) refers to the circumstances set out in s 120(3)(a) and (b). The Parliament has excluded circumstances where the termination is based upon a lack of registration as referred to in s 120(3)(f).
Ms Ferguson submitted that the Department was correct to have proceeded to terminate Mr Asikas' employment and to not accept his request for a continuing indefinite suspension pending an application for re-registration. Ms Ferguson noted that the process of re-registration is outside of the control of the Department. Further, there is no way of knowing how long that process may take.
The reports of Mr Balfour and Dr Proeve were addressed. The Department accepted that the reports demonstrate the steps that have been and will continue to be undertaken by Mr Asikas to address matters raised by the TRB. The Department acknowledged the possibility of Mr Asikas being a registered teacher in the future but did not accept that as an appropriate basis to have continued the suspension indefinitely. Rather, if Mr Asikas secures re-registration in the future then he can apply at that time to be re-employed by the Department. The Department noted that he could also, at that time, seek employment with an independent school and that the consequences of the termination of his employment by the Department, in itself, should not be viewed as catastrophic as suggested by Mr Asikas.

As noted earlier in these reasons, the only matter of fact not agreed between the parties relating to Mr Asikas' conduct is whether the TRB correctly made a finding of an altercation between Mr Asikas and a 71 year old woman. Neither party contended before this Tribunal that whether that incident occurred as found by the TRB would make any difference to the outcome of the current proceeding. Whether that incident occurred as found by the TRB is not material to the outcome of the application before this Tribunal.
Mr Asikas did not challenge the characterisation of his other conduct as found by the TRB. It was both improper and disgraceful. The conduct was misconduct within the ambit of s 120(3)(c) of the ECS Act.
The TRB had the benefit of having heard and seen MW as she gave her evidence. The TRB stated that it was clear during her evidence that she had been deeply affected by Mr Asikas' behaviour. It found that his conduct had caused her significant fear, anxiety and stress for some three years after the end of the relationship. This finding was not disputed by Mr Asikas and it is taken into account by this Tribunal. The TRB characterised Mr Asikas' language towards MW, in the context of whether he was at the time a fit and proper person to be a teacher of children, as "abhorrent". The language was abusive and the expression used by the TRB is indicative of the emotion that could be instilled by the use of such language. The other relevant findings of the TRB are also to be taken into account.
Earlier in these reasons I referred to the characterisation by the TRB of Mr Asikas' behaviour towards the other four women as part of a continuum of behaviour. It is significant that Mr Asikas' misconduct has not been confined to a period of distress immediately following the breakdown of an interpersonal relationship. His conduct whilst a student teacher was of such concern that he was suspended for a period of some three years. The report of Mr Balfour refers to other incidents which support a characterisation of a continuum of inappropriate behaviour relating to females. On one occasion at a staff Christmas party a female colleague, whom he understood was a lesbian, was socialising with an attractive female who was also a teacher. The women overheard him say that he thought they would go home together and "sizzle". He was verbally reprimanded by the school principal.
Mr Balfour also referred to background documentation of concerning conduct in a car which was viewed by a student and her mother. That was not specifically addressed by the parties but its accuracy appears to have been accepted by Mr Balfour and was not disputed by Mr Asikas. The report of Mr Balfour was tendered by Mr ASikas as part of his case. The Tribunal, even when in court session, is not bound to apply the rules of evidence.[29]
There is some consistency in relation to the misconduct. All of the conduct involves transgressions of social norms recognised for acceptable behaviour. The conduct was associated with a lack of understanding at the time by Mr Asikas as to what constitutes appropriate conduct and how his conduct may adversely affect others.
I accept the evidence of Mr Balfour and Dr Proeve to the effect that Mr Asikas has obsessional personality traits which have contributed to some of his behaviour and his lack of understanding of why it was inappropriate and how his conduct may be affecting others. Mr Balfour explained that individuals who have such personality traits may have advantages in professions requiring precision, consistency, and structure but interpersonal relationships may be strained by rigidity, critical thinking or inflexible standards. He referred to recognising and managing these traits as being essential for maintaining both professional success and psychological health. He stated that if obsessional personality traits are left unchecked, they may contribute to rigid, controlling dynamics that undermine the quality of personal connections. The reasoning was helpful in the Tribunal understanding the conduct relating to MW and the other four women but was limited in understanding his conduct as a student teacher or in his car.
In the circumstances of the findings of improper and disgraceful conduct and that Mr Asikas was, at the time, not a fit and proper person to be registered as a teacher, the order was made by the TRB that disqualified Mr Asikas from being a registered teacher until further order. That order, and the earlier expiration of registration, gave rise to the exercise of discretion as to whether to terminate the employment of Mr Asikas pursuant to s 120(3)(g) of the ECS Act.
I find that when Mr Bernardi exercised the discretion to terminate Mr Asikas' employment, he relied primarily upon Mr Asikas no longer being a registered teacher within the meaning of the TRS Act. This is the sole ground expressly stated in the notice of intention to terminate letter of Mr Bernardi dated 23 January 2025. That letter includes the following:

As a consequence of you being disqualified from being a registered teacher, by virtue of the terms contained in the TRS Act, you are now prohibited from discharging your duties as a teacher and officer of the teaching service in employment with the Department for Education (the Department).

...

Intention to terminate employment

As you are no longer registered within the meaning of the TRS Act, I hereby place you on notice that it is my intention to terminate your employment pursuant to section 120(3)(f) of the Education and Children's Services Act of 2019 (ECS Act).

In the subsequent letter of termination dated 18 March 2025, again s 120(3)(f) of the ECS Act was the only provision expressly referred to as the basis for the termination of employment. Mr Bernardi stated:

...pursuant to the terms of section 120(3)(f) of the ECS Act, I hereby terminate your employment as an officer of the teaching service. Such termination of employment shall take effect from the date of this letter.

The termination letter did refer to the findings of the TRB including the findings of disgraceful and improper conduct and from the evidence of Mr Bernardi I have been satisfied that if there had been a need to do so, then he would have terminated the employment of Mr Asikas, as a separate ground, on the basis of misconduct.
Whilst not being registered as a teacher within that the meaning of the TRS Act may give rise to a termination of the contract of employment, a discretion is still to be exercised. Termination of employment is not a mandatory outcome and nor does the section provide an absolute right to terminate in such circumstances. Where a power is conferred by statute and the statute is silent as to the exercise of that power then, as a matter of practise, the common law rule applies that the party conferred the power will act reasonably in its exercise.[30]
There are a variety of reasons as to why a teacher may not have current registration. It may have lapsed due to a failure to renew in time. It may be due to an illness which is being successfully treated and the teacher may be expected to be able to return to work as a teacher in the near future. In this case it was the conduct of Mr Asikas. To proceed to terminate a person's employment from the teaching service is a serious matter and Mr Bernardi should have read the reasons for decision of the TRB before he made the decision to terminate the employment of Mr Asikas. However, s 120 of the ECS Act does not make that mandatory and there has been no procedural unfairness to Mr Asikas. Mr Bernardi was aware at the time of the decision to terminate employment of the finding of the TRB of both improper and disgraceful conduct. He had also been provided with the "Additional Comments" which followed the findings and order of the TRB, and which set out what was expected of Mr Asikas before the TRB may consider a lifting of the disqualification or a reconsideration of Mr Asikas' fitness and propriety to be registered as a teacher under the TRS Act. Mr Bernardi also had a summary of the involvement of South Australia Police in relation to complaints made relating to Mr Asikas' conduct. Apart from one incident, the findings of the TRB, the order made and the Additional Comments have not been subject to challenge by Mr Asikas.
I reject the submission of Mr Asikas that Mr Bernardi erred in not considering the placement of Mr Asikas in a non-teaching role within the Education Department pending the outcome of what was suggested would be an imminent application to the TRB for re-registration as a teacher. I also reject his submission that the Department should have approved ongoing leave without pay. That was raised by reference to a timeline of when he would be able to return to work as a teacher.
It appears to have been ultimately accepted by Mr Asikas that there was no statutory obligation for the Department to seek other suitable duties under s 120(4) of the ECS Act. The text of s 120 makes clear that there is no statutory obligation to do so in the circumstances of Mr Asikas. The obligation to take reasonable steps to find other suitable duties in the public sector of the State, under s 120(4) of the ECS Act only arises where the Department is considering a termination of employment under either subsection (3)(a) or (b). They are circumstances of the officer being excess to the requirements of the teaching service or if the officer is physically or mentally incapable of performing duties satisfactorily. Misconduct is a separate category under s 120(3)(c) and non-registration is a separate category under s 120(3)(f).
Mr Asikas sought to rely upon common law principles that, upon a finding of misconduct, in the range of disciplinary action that may be taken, the termination of employment should be viewed as a last resort. The correct approach is to construe and apply s 120 of the ECS Act. It is by reference to that statutory provision that the decision to terminate the employment was made. Whether the Department should have allowed more time before determining the appropriate disciplinary action, is to be considered in the circumstances of Mr Asikas, including his lack of teacher registration, the seriousness of his misconduct and where he sought, at the time, the provision of duties outside of the scope of his position of employment, indefinitely.
Mr Asikas had already been suspended with pay for some two years before his employment was terminated and confirmed by letter dated 18 March 2025. We are now approaching three years from when Mr Asikas last worked as a teacher in the teaching service. The stalking charges of 25 November 2022 were brought to the attention of the Registrar of the TRB. The subject matter was investigated and the complaint of the Registrar was not raised until 15 December 2023, and amended on 18 March 2024. The hearing was heard by the TRB on 3 and 4 June 2024 and the reasons for decision published on 16 December 2024. The Department would have no control over the time it would take for the TRB to investigate, hear and determine any application in the future for re-registration.
At the time of the hearing before this Tribunal, Mr Asikas had not concluded the treatment being received from Dr Proeve. The opinions expressed by Dr Proeve as to prognosis, in those circumstances, are necessarily provisional.
The submissions of Mr Asikas indicated an optimistic view of the Additional Comments of the TRB at the end of its reasons for decision. It was suggested that Mr Bernardi was premature in terminating the contract of employment because upon successful treatment by Dr Proeve the TRB would be likely to favourably consider an application for re-registration. The Additional Comments of the TRB are a clear statement that if Mr Asikas wished to apply for re-registration then the matters referred to would be expected to be attended to before the TRB would consider an application for a lifting of the disqualification and a reconsideration of Mr Asikas' possible fitness and propriety to be registered as a teacher under the TRS Act. In its reasons for decision the TRB referred to and adopted observations of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Ex parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act[31] that whilst reformations of character and behaviour can occur, their occurrence is not the usual but the exceptional thing. The Court went on to state that in a case such as this there must be clear proof to show that Mr Asikas has established himself as a different man.
Mr Asikas relied upon the assessment of Dr Proeve that, at the time of his report, the prognosis was fair to good. Firstly, as stated above, that was necessarily a provisional view part way through treatment and where Mr Balfour had previously provided a prognosis of fair. Secondly, it is not clear from the report of Dr Proeve as to the extent there will still be a risk of a relapse in the future. He acknowledged at the time of his report there was some risk. Thirdly, in evaluating that risk Dr Proeve did not expressly refer to the conduct whilst a student teacher nor the conduct in Mr Asikas' car or the incident at the staff function. The incident in the car was referred to by Mr Balfour as concerning behaviour.
In paragraph [32] of these reasons I referred to the observation of Gray J in Edwards that the TRB's primary consideration is the welfare and best interests of children. In such circumstances the TRB is required to take into account the potential of harm or ill health to children whether the prospect of harm or ill health is a possibility or a probability.[32]
In all the circumstances, the correct or preferred decision to have been made by the Department was to terminate Mr Asikas' contract of employment. Those circumstances include, by way of a summary:
1. Mr Asikas was employed as a teacher and cannot work as a teacher until registered to do so.
2. The nature of the conduct which has included disgraceful and improper conduct.
3. The number of incidents.
4. The period of time over which the incidents have occurred.
5. The misconduct whilst a student teacher involved boundary issues with female students and the later misconduct at the staff Christmas party, the abusive comments directed to MW, and women generally, and his interactions with four other women involved boundary issues with women and give rise to a concern more broadly in relation to how he has viewed women. I am permitted to know without evidence that the treatment of some women by some men is a topic of social discourse. As noted in Warren students are not just taught the curriculum. They may be guided by their teachers in relation to what may constitute socially acceptable behaviour.
6. The conduct involved a continuum of behaviour and a continuing lack of appreciation of how his conduct impacted adversely upon others.
7. A continuation of abusive and stalking behaviour towards MW notwithstanding police warning.
8. The identification of unhelpful obsessional personality traits, unrealistic idealism about relationships with women and the impact of loneliness upon his behaviour, in relation to some of the conduct.
9. The prognosis of Mr Balfour before treatment and the provisional nature of the prognosis of Dr Proeve mid-treatment. Dr Proeve stated in his report that he used the findings of Mr Balfour as a guide for treatment sessions but he did not give oral evidence and whilst his report refers to the conduct relating to MW and the four other women, it does not refer to the incident at the staff party, nor the incident in the car, nor the conduct whilst a student teacher. It remains unclear whether Dr Proeve had regard to those incidents either when formulating and providing treatment in his sessions with Mr Asikas or when he considered the prognosis. If he did, he did not explain how he did so. His report focuses upon improving Mr Asikas' interactions with women and socially acceptable dating behaviour with women. The TRB sought information relating to "the behaviour" which I understand to be all the concerning behaviour. I accept the evidence of Mr Asikas that the sessions with both Mr Balfour and Dr Proeve have provided him with a better insight into his past conduct and how it has impacted upon women. Whether that will result in lasting change in conduct and attitude is associated with risk. Upon the current evidence the risk remains significant.
10. The overarching consideration by the TRB of the welfare and best interests of children.
11. The inability of the Department to control when Mr Asikas may make an application for re-registration or how long it may take the TRB to investigate the application and then hear and determine the application.
A decision to terminate Mr Asikas' employment does not, in itself, bring to an end Mr Asikas' teaching career. If at the conclusion of his treatment with Dr Proeve, he is able to provide evidence to the TRB which shows that he has established himself as a different man and is a fit and proper person to be a registered teacher then the TRB may grant registration. If Mr Asikas becomes a registered teacher he may make application for employment as a teacher in a school of this State.

Mr Asikas made application for a restriction in publication of these reasons for decision and decision. There was little detail as to the basis of that application. The Department submitted that it was ultimately a matter for the Tribunal but it did not support such an order being made in this case.
The relevant provision is s 55 of the SAET Act which provides:

(1) Subject to this or any other Act, proceedings before the Tribunal must be heard in public.

(2) The Tribunal may, where it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so -

(a) in the interest of justice; or

(b) by reason of the confidential nature of the evidence to be given before the Tribunal; or

(c) in order to expedite proceedings of the Tribunal; or

(d) for any other reason that the Tribunal thinks sufficient,

(e) requiring that a hearing, or part of a hearing, be held in private; or

(f) prohibiting or restricting the publication of the name and address of a witness appearing before the Tribunal; or

(g) prohibiting or restricting the publication of evidence given before the Tribunal or of the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal; or

(h) prohibiting or restricting the disclosure to some or all of the parties to proceedings before the Tribunal of evidence given before the Tribunal or of the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal; or

(i) excluding any person from the hearing before the Tribunal of any part of the proceedings.

(3) A person must comply with a direction of the Tribunal under subsection (2).

The relevant principles to be applied were addressed by the Full Bench in Chief Executive, Attorney-General's Department v Montrose (No 2).[33] Miss Montrose was a teacher employed by the Department whose employment was terminated by the Department. The Full Bench commenced its consideration by observing that s 55 refers to hearings being conducted in public and that the operation of the courts in a public way provides a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness or idiosyncrasy and maintains public confidence in the administration of justice. Without it, abuses may flourish undetected.[34]
The Full Bench stated that the publication of reasons for judgment is an aspect of the principle that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.[35]
Embarrassment alone is not a sufficient reason to restrict publication.[36]
The Full Bench observed that s 55(2) of the SAET Act nevertheless confers a broad discretion for the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting or restricting publication of evidence or the contents of any document produced to the Tribunal for any reason that the Tribunal thinks sufficient. That discretion is to be exercised judicially and in the context of the established principles referred to. In such circumstances it is the party that seeks to restrict publication that bears the onus of persuading the Tribunal not only that the criteria set out in s 55(2) are satisfied but that the discretion should be exercised in the manner sought.[37]
I have not been persuaded that it is in the interest of justice for there to be a restriction in the publication of these reasons for decision.
Apart from embarrassment, the submissions for Mr Asikas alluded to the possibility of the publication of these reasons adversely and unfairly impacting upon his prospects of being employed as a teacher in the future and, potentially, with an independent school. I understood the submission to include the possibility of anonymising Mr Asikas' name. This fails to have adequate regard to the primary consideration being the welfare and best interests of children who are students throughout the State's education system. There is another provision that indicates the primacy of that factor. Section 49B of the TRS Act provides for the sharing of information:

49B - Sharing of information between Teachers Registration Board and certain persons and bodies

(1) This section applies to the following persons and bodies:

(a) the Teachers Registration Board;

(b) the Education and Early Childhood Services Registration and Standards Board of South Australia;

(c) the Registrar;

(d) a teacher regulatory authority in Australia and New Zealand;

(e) a person or body who is an employer of a teacher;

(f) the central assessment unit under the Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016;

(g) a State authority;

(h) any other person or body declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this subsection.

(2) Despite any other Act or law, a person or body to whom this section applies (the provider) may, in accordance with any requirement set out in the regulations, provide prescribed information and documents to another person or body to whom this section applies (the recipient) if the provider reasonably believes that the provision of the information or documents would assist the recipient -

(a) to perform official functions relating to the health, safety, welfare or wellbeing of a child or class of children; or

(b) to manage any risk to a child or class of children that might arise in the recipient's capacity as an employer or provider of services.

(3) Despite any other Act or law, information or documents that do not directly or indirectly disclose the identity of any person may be provided by one person or body to whom this section applies to another without restriction.

(4) Subsection (3) applies -

(a) whether or not the information or documents consist of or include prescribed information and documents; and

(b) whether the information or document ever disclosed the identity of a person, or has been redacted so as to de-identify it.

(5) Information may be provided under this section regardless of whether the provider has been requested to provide the information.

(6) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a teacher will be taken to include a reference to a person granted a special authority to teach under Part 6 (whether or not the special authority has expired).

(a) information or documents relating to the health, safety, welfare or wellbeing of a particular child or class of children; or

(b) any other information or document of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition;

(a) a person who holds an office established by an Act; or

(c) a public sector agency; or

(d) South Australia Police; or

(e) a local council constituted under the Local Government Act 1999; or

(f) any other person or body declared by the regulations to be a State authority,

but does not include a person or body declared by the regulations to be excluded from the ambit of this definition.

Section 49B(1)(e) provides that the section applies to a person or body who is an employer of a teacher. It includes government and independent schools. The purpose of the provision is, in accordance with s 49B(2)(a) or (b), to enable a person or body to whom the section applies to receive prescribed information and documents to perform official functions relating to the health, safety, welfare or wellbeing of a child or a class of children or to manage any risk to a child or class of children that may arise in the recipient's capacity as an employer or provider of services. The phrase "prescribed information and documents" is defined broadly to be "informational documents relating to the health, safety, welfare or wellbeing of a particular child or a class of children" or any other information or document of a kind prescribed by the regulations. The steps that Mr Asikas has taken and continues to take to address the matters raised by the TRB as a prerequisite for a future application for re-registration will be considered by the TRB in any future application to it to become a registered teacher again. If he is successful then, the TRB will provide reasons and Mr Asikas may provide those reasons to any potential future employer. Any decision made in relation to the employment of a teacher in this State should be by reference to all of the relevant information and that includes these reasons for decision.
The application for restricted publication should be dismissed.

Pursuant to s 30(1)(a) of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014, the decision of the Department for Education dated 18 March 2025 terminating the contract of employment of Mr Christopher Asikas as a teacher and officer of the teaching service with the Department for Education, is affirmed.
The application by Mr Asikas for a restriction in publication of the reasons for decision and orders in this matter is dismissed.

[1] In this case the decision was made by Mr Bernardi who held the substantive position of Chief Operating Officer of the Education Department and acted as the approved delegate of the Chief Executive at the time.

[9] See, for example, Dwyer v Calco Timbers Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 13 at [2] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

[13] Ibid [53]. The finding was made at first instance and not challenged upon appeal.

[29] See subsections 32(1) and (1a) of the SAET Act.

[30] Morgan v William Dixon Ltd [2012] AC 74 at 78-79, followed in Hill v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1997) 191 LSJS 300 at 307 (Lander J (with whom Doyle CJ and Duggan J agreed)).

[32] See Executive Director of Health v Lily Creek International Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 258 at [28] (Ipp J); The Commissioner of Police for the State of South Australia v Beau Amodeo [2023] SALC 50, [43] (Gilchrist J).

Teachers Registration and Standards Act 2004

Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013

Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

Children's Services Act 2019

Registration and Standards Act 2004

Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016

Asikas v Department for Education [2026] SAET 4

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (134 paragraphs)

Asikas v Department for Education [2026] SAET 4 (13 January 2026)

Parties

Legislation Cited (7)

Cases Cited (3)