TBL v Queensland College of Teachers [2026] QCAT 85

[3] The review provided for at s 55(6) of the Act is a review conducted in the Tribunal's original jurisdiction.[1]

[4] The legal representative for TBL submits that there has been a delay in referring the present matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary action: see s 55A of the Act. Rather than refer the matter to the Tribunal, on 14 August 2025 the College and TBL entered into a Practice and Conduct Agreement ('the Agreement') pursuant to s 101 of the Act, which provides:

(1) The college may, if it considers it appropriate in the circumstances and with the written consent of the relevant teacher, enter into an agreement (a practice and conduct agreement) with the teacher to do 1 or more of the following -

(a) not take further action against the teacher;

(b) issue a warning or reprimand to the teacher;

(c) impose conditions on the teacher's registration or permission to teach.

(2) In deciding whether it would be appropriate to enter into a practice and conduct agreement, the college must have regard to the following considerations -

(a) primarily, the welfare and best interests of children;

(b) the objects of this Act;

(c) the circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the matter.

(3) As soon as practicable after making its decision, the college must give the teacher notice of the decision and the reasons for it.

(4) A practice and conduct agreement is binding on the college and the relevant teacher.

[5] Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties agreed that a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Act had been established.[2] Broadly, the alleged conduct giving rise to the suspension included allegations that TBL breached his professional boundaries by being overfamiliar and engaging in inappropriate physical contact with a number of female students, including touching students' hair, allowing students to touch his hair, hugging students, holding a student's hand while redirecting her to her cabin during a school camp, swinging students around on the oval during playground duty, and writing a student a letter in relation to her friendship group.

[6] Consistent with s 101(1)(b) of the Act, the parties further agreed that the disciplinary action to be taken against TBL is a reprimand. It was further agreed that TBL complete a specified professional boundaries online learning program within ninety days of entering into the Agreement. In further submissions filed on behalf of TBL on 31 October 2025, it was submitted that the professional boundaries course had been completed. A certificate of completion was attached to those submissions.

[7] It was submitted on behalf of TBL that the Agreement was the most appropriate means of addressing the alleged conduct given the following circumstances: the significant length of time that had passed (the alleged conduct occurred between 2019 and 2020); TBL had no prior history of disciplinary action; any prohibition from teaching that might have been imposed had the matter proceeded to the Tribunal would now have been served; and the parties consider minor disciplinary action is suitable.

[8] However, the Agreement does not end the suspension of TBL's teacher registration. It was agreed between the College and TBL that all necessary steps would be taken to apply to the Tribunal for an order ending the suspension of his teacher registration.

[9] The circumstances in which the suspension can be ended under the Act are limited. Section 52 of the Act deals with when a suspension ends and provides as follows:

A suspension of an approved teacher's registration or permission to teach under this division ends when the earliest of the following happens -

(a) QCAT decides, under section 55, 152, 159 or 160, to end the suspension;

(b) the teacher's registration or permission to teach is cancelled under division 3 or section 160;

(c) if the college authorises an investigation under section 98 of the matter giving rise to a suspension under section 49 -

(i) the investigator's report includes a finding that the matter does not raise a ground for disciplinary action against the approved teacher; and

(ii) the college is reasonably satisfied there is no ground for disciplinary action against the approved teacher.

[10] Subject to the observations made below in relation to s 55 of the Act, none of the provisions referred to in s 52 of the Act allow the Tribunal to end the suspension in circumstances where a Practice and Conduct Agreement is entered into. Sections 152, 159 and 160 of the Act deal with circumstances where the Tribunal determines that a ground for disciplinary action has been established,[3] while division 3 (ss 56 and 57 of the Act) arises where the registration is cancelled. That has not occurred here. Section 52(c) deals with circumstances where, in relation to a suspension under s 49 of the Act, following an investigation it is concluded that there is no ground for disciplinary action against the teacher. In the present case, it is accepted by TBL and the College that a ground for disciplinary action has been established.

[11] On the other hand, s 55 of the Act, which is headed 'QCAT's decision about continuation of suspension', provides:

(1) After considering any submissions made by the approved teacher within the stated time under section 54, QCAT must decide -

(a) if the review is of the suspension of an approved teacher under section 48 - whether it is an exceptional case in which the best interests of children would not be harmed if the suspension were ended; or

(b) if the review is of the suspension of an approved teacher under section 49 - whether the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

(a) if the review is of the suspension of an approved teacher under section 48 - QCAT is satisfied it is an exceptional case; or

(b) if the review is of the suspension of an approved teacher under section 49 - QCAT is satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

(3) QCAT's decision must be made not later than 14 days after the earlier of the following to happen -

(a) QCAT receives the approved teacher's submission under section 54;

(b) the stated time under section 54 ends.

(4) If QCAT does not make a decision within the 14 day period under subsection (3), QCAT is taken to have made an order ending the suspension.

(5) QCAT must, as soon as practicable, give notice of its decision to the approved teacher and the college.

(a) QCAT's decision and the reasons for it;

(b) if the decision is that it is not an exceptional case or that the teacher poses an unacceptable risk to children - that the teacher may apply, within 28 days after the notice is given and as otherwise provided under the QCAT Act, to QCAT for a review of QCAT's decision.

[12] As is noted above at [1], on 28 June 2022 the suspension of the registration of the applicant as a teacher was continued by the Tribunal pursuant to ss 53 and 55 of the Act. The present application before the Tribunal is an application to review that decision pursuant to s 55(6) of the Act.

[13] As noted above at [7], submissions were filed in support of that application. The College endorsed those submissions, stating that it did not oppose the application for an extension of time and considers that TBL's circumstances have positively changed. The College further states that it accepts that TBL no longer poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children and submits that it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to end the suspension of his teacher registration.

[14] In the circumstances, an extension of time for filing the application to review is allowed. In relation to the substantive question, s 53(3)(b) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must decide to continue the suspension unless satisfied that 'the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children'.

[15] While the Act does not define the term 'unacceptable risk of harm', by section 7 of the Act 'harm' to a child is 'any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child's physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing'. As to 'unacceptable risk', see Queensland College of Teachers v LDW:[4]

...this formulation directs the Tribunal to an assessment of the 'chances' of the risk occurring and the magnitude of potential harm if it did occur, and requires a balancing exercise of advantages and detriments.

[16] Given the material and submissions now before the Tribunal and the lack of any contrary material or evidence, I am satisfied that TBL does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The considerations underlying that view include that there has been no prior disciplinary action; the period of suspension of over three and a half years, which has enabled a lengthy reflection on the part of TBL; his acceptance that a ground for disciplinary action has been established; his completion of the professional boundaries course; and the view of the College that TBL's circumstances have positively changed and that he no longer poses an unacceptable risk of harm to children.

[17] Accordingly, pursuant to s 55(2)(b) of the Act, I order that the suspension of Teacher QSK's registration or permission to teach be ended.

[18] Pursuant to s 66(1)(c) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that may enable a person who has appeared before the Tribunal, or is affected by a proceeding, to be identified. The Tribunal may do so on the application of a party or on its own initiative.[5]

[19] On behalf of TBL it is submitted that a non-publication order is appropriate, as identification of TBL or the relevant school could lead to identification of relevant students or of any witness associated with the matter. Such an order is not opposed by the College.

[20] I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that would identify TBL, the relevant students, the relevant school, or any witnesses associated with the matter, other than to the extent necessary to enable the College to meet its statutory obligations, including those arising under ss 285, 285AA, 285B and 287 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld).

[21] I make orders pursuant to s 66 of the QCAT Act prohibiting the publication of that information.

[1] See s 10(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act'); see also Queensland College of Teachers v CXJ [2017] QCAT 83 [17]-[19]; Teacher MYK v Queensland College of Teachers [2023] QCAT 114 [3].

[2] Under s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) ('the Act'), a ground for disciplinary action is established where a relevant teacher 'behaves is a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher'.

[3] Section 152 of the Act allows for interim orders.

[4] [2017] QCAT 48, [10]-[11] (citations omitted).