Kourlas v Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (No 2)

The case of Kourlas v Teachers Registration Board of South Australia (No 2) involves the applicant, Kourlas, challenging the decision of the Teachers Registration Board of South Australia to refuse his application for teacher registration. The applicant argued that the Board had made procedural errors in its handling of his application. The legal issues before the court included whether the Board had correctly exercised its discretion in assessing the applicant's eligibility for registration, particularly in relation to the consideration of the applicant's fitness and propriety, and whether the Board had improperly considered evidence of an incident that occurred in 2018. The court had to determine if the Board's decision should be upheld, rescinded, or remitted for reconsideration.

The court found that the Board had indeed made procedural errors, leading to the conclusion that the Board's decision should be rescinded. However, the court emphasized that the Board, as a specialist body, is best placed to determine the applicant's fitness and propriety to be registered as a teacher, particularly given the extended period between the applicant completing his teacher training and applying for registration. The court remitted the applicant's application to the Board with specific directions, including that a new panel should be constituted and that the Board should not take into account certain evidence in its reconsideration. Additionally, the court considered the issue of costs, noting that while the applicant had made a submission for costs, the principles regarding the award of costs in the interests of justice required careful consideration. Ultimately, the court determined that the award of costs was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The final orders of the court included remitting the applicant's application for teacher registration to the Board for reconsideration by a new panel, with specific directions regarding the evidence to be considered. The court did not order costs to be paid by the Board to the applicant, finding that such an order was not necessary in the interests of justice.