Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher RLT
[2025] QCAT 449
•12 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATIONQueensland College of Teachers v Teacher RLT [2025] QCAT 449
PARTIES:
QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
(applicant)
v
TEACHER RLT
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR092-24
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
12 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Aughterson
Member English
Member Holzberger
ORDERS:
1. The disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Education Act’) is established.
2. Pursuant to s 161(2)(c) of the Education Act, Teacher RLT is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026.
3. Pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of the Education Act, a notation is to be entered in the register of teachers that should Teacher RLT apply for registration or permission to teach after the expiry of the prohibition period, the application must include an independent psychologist’s report satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers addressing the following:
(a) an assessment of the teacher’s appreciation of the following:
(i) the legal obligations of teachers;
(ii) differentiating between personal and professional relationships;
(iii) development and maintenance of professional standards when working with young people and actively determining and implementing professional boundaries with individual students;
(iv) personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
(v) what constitutes inappropriate communication;
(vi) understanding the effects of inappropriate relationships with students and former students;
(vii) the awareness of the trust and power granted to a teacher; and
(viii) understanding and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers’ Code of Ethics;
(b) the psychologist’s report must also include:
(i) an assessment from the psychologist of the likelihood of Teacher RLT engaging in a similar type of behaviour in the future;
(ii) an indication from the psychologist about whether the psychologist is satisfied that Teacher RLT has adequately understood and addressed the above;
(iii) confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of this decision and referral under s 97 of the Education Act.
(iv) the duration and frequency of visits and details of any testing that was undertaken.
4. Teacher RLT must bear all costs of, and associated with, compliance with these orders.
5. There be no order as to costs.
6. Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify Teacher RLT, any relevant student, former student, other teacher, third party, or school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B, and 287 of the Education Act, or as necessary for Teacher RLT to comply with any disclosure requirements of any regulatory authority or employer.
CATCHWORDS:
EDUCATION – EDUCATORS – DISCIPLINARY MATTERS – GENERALLY – where teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar behaviour with students and inappropriate conversations – where commenced inappropriate and personal intimate relationship with former student – where teacher aware of vulnerability of students – whether teacher’s conduct satisfies the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher – whether non-publication order appropriate – determination of appropriate sanction – where prohibition order made
Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005
(Qld), s 3, s 48, s 49, s 92, s 97, s 98, s 123, s 147, s 158, s 11A, s 161, s 201, s 285, s 285AA, s 285B, s 287, sch 3
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009(Qld), s 32, s 66
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong [2010] QCAT 709Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59
Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194
Queensland College of Teachers v HMJ [2016] QCAT 447
Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59Queensland College of Teacher v RTM [2016] QCAT 501
Queensland College of Teachers v SGS [2017] QCAT 383
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA [2017] QCAT 224
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background and legislative regime
RLT is a former approved teacher who was first registered as a teacher in Queensland in 1988. On 26 March 2020 the Queensland College of Teachers (‘QCT’) formed the belief that he posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children and suspended his teacher registration pursuant to s 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘Education Act’). On 2 June 2020, the suspension was continued by the Tribunal. RLT did not renew his teacher registration in April 2021 and was removed from the register of teachers.
By s 97(1) of the Education Act, if the QCT reasonably believes that grounds for disciplinary action against a ‘relevant teacher’ exist,[1] it must refer the matter to a ‘practice and conduct body’, which means either the Tribunal or the Professional Capacity & Teacher Conduct Committee (PC&TCC).[2]
[1]‘Relevant teacher’ is defined at Schedule 3 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘Education Act’) to mean either an approved teacher or a former approved teacher. ‘Former approved teacher’ means a former registered teacher or a former holder of a permission to teach. A ‘former registered teacher’, in relation to a disciplinary matter, means a person who was a registered teacher when the conduct to which the disciplinary matter relates happened and is no longer a registered teacher.
[2]Education Act (n 1) ss 97(2)(a), (b).
Following an investigation undertaken pursuant to s 98 of the Education Act, on 3 June 2020 the completed report was referred to the PC&TCC.[3] On 28 July 2020, the PC&TCC decided to refer the matter to the Tribunal pursuant to s 111A of the Education Act. The disciplinary referral was filed in the Tribunal on 16 April 2024.
[3]By s 201(2)(a)(ii) of the Education Act, the written report about an investigation must be given to the PC&TCC.
Pursuant to s 123(4A) of the Education Act, if the PC&TCC refers the matter to the Tribunal, the QCT must inform the Tribunal about the grounds for the practice and conduct matter and the facts and circumstances forming the basis for the grounds. The Tribunal is then to conduct a hearing and make a decision having regard to the information provided by the QCT.
Relevant to the investigation report and findings of the Senior Investigator, which has been filed in the Tribunal, s 147 of the Education Act provides:
During the hearing, QCAT may—
(a) receive in evidence a transcript, or part of a transcript, of evidence taken in a proceeding before a disciplinary body or a court, tribunal or other entity established under the law of the State, the Commonwealth, another State or a foreign country, and draw conclusions of fact from the evidence it considers appropriate; or
(b) adopt, as it considers appropriate, decisions, findings, judgements, or reasons for judgement, of a disciplinary body, court, tribunal or other entity that may be relevant to the hearing.
The conduct subject to this disciplinary proceeding occurred between 2013 and 2018 when RLT was a registered teacher.
In deciding whether a ground for disciplinary action is established, the applicable standard of proof for the Tribunal is the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, with the degree of satisfaction varying according to the gravity of the facts to be proven.[4]
[4]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336, 361–362.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action exists, the Tribunal may take one or more of the actions set out at s 161 of the Education Act. The issue of sanction is discussed separately, below.
Grounds for disciplinary action
In relation to grounds, the QCT submits that the relevant ground for disciplinary action is the ground contained in s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act, which applies where:
the person behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher;
The standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher is not defined in the Education Act. However, in Queensland College of Teachers v Armstrong it was stated:[5]
… the standard expected should be the standard ‘reasonably’ expected by the community at large, as the actions of a teacher may impact directly upon the children of the community; and this in turn should reflect the standard that those in the teaching profession would expect of their colleagues and peers.
[5][2010] QCAT 709 [33]; see also Queensland College of Teachers v PPK [2019] QCAT 59.
In Queensland College of Teachers v PPK, it was stated that the standard is ‘fluid’ and is ‘informed by how the community, including the teaching profession, would expect a teacher to behave’.[6]
[6][2019] QCAT 59 [36].
The Tribunal has previously observed that teachers are bestowed with a special trust by parents and the community to act in the best interests of students and to protect them from harm and, with that trust, an expectation that it will not be breached.[7]
[7]Queensland College of Teachers v DGM [2018] QCAT 194.
In considering the expected standard it is also appropriate to bear in mind the objects of the Education Act, which are:[8]
(a) to uphold the standards of the teaching profession; and
(b)to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession; and
(c)to protect the public by ensuring education in schools is provided in a professional and competent way by approved teachers.
[8]Education Act (n 1) s 3.
In summary, it is alleged that whilst a registered teacher at the relevant school, RLT:
(a)between 2013 and 2015, engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar interactions with student A, including telling her that she was his favourite student; lending her books unrelated to the curriculum and giving her gifts; giving her feedback and assistance not provided to other students; and giving her exam results before other students;
(b)between 2016 and 2018, commenced an inappropriate personal and intimate relationship with now former student A (completed year 12 in 2015), including meeting at cafes, telling her that he loved her, and requesting and exchanging sexualised photographs;
(c)between 2016 and 2018, engaged in an inappropriate personal and intimate relationship with former student A, including exchanging sexualised emails;
(d)between 2016 and 2018, engaged in an inappropriate personal and intimate relationship with former student A, including engaging in sexual intercourse with former student A, commencing in March 2017;
(e)On or about 26 May 2013, gave year 11 student B a birthday card, at a time when they were alone together and requested that student B not inform any third party about the card;
(f)Between February and July 2013, engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar email communications with student B, including wishing her a happy Valentine’s Day, emailing an article about Harry Potter Lego, offering to lend her a book unrelated to the curriculum, and giving her his email address and telling her he would be visiting Sydney in August 2013.
In submissions filed on his behalf, RLT accepts the QCT submissions concerning the factual matrix and accepts that on the material before the Tribunal the grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act are established.
Pursuant to s 158(2) of the Education Act, in deciding whether there is a ground for disciplinary action, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decisions of which it is aware. In that regard, in its submissions the QCT listed several previous decisions, including the following:
(a) Queensland College of Teacher v RTM [2016] QCAT 501: the teacher had eleven years teaching experience in a high school. He was 35 years old and had a relationship with a year 11 student which continued when the student went into year 12. The relationship escalated after the student’s 18th birthday. They engaged in sexual activity and intercourse prior to the student’s graduation and continued for a further five months after graduation. RTM’s registration was cancelled and he was prohibited from re-applying for registration for seven years and eight months from the suspension date and required to undergo a professional boundaries course and provide a psychologist’s report on re-application.
(b) Queensland College of Teachers v ATL [2020] QCAT 59: a teacher with about 7 years of experience engaged in sexual relationships with Student A and former Student B. He was aged between 28 and 32 at the material times. The conduct against Student A started when she was in year 12 and consisted of electronic communications and spending time alone with her. While she remained a student, the teacher had sexual intercourse with Student A on more than one occasion. The relationship continued after Student A graduated. The teacher also gave to Student A inappropriate and excessive assistance with her assessments. The conduct against Student B commenced in the year after she graduated and included sexual intercourse. That relationship lasted about three years. The Tribunal found that ATL’s ‘propensity to pursue relationships with current and former students is apparent’. The Tribunal cancelled ATL’s teacher registration and prohibited him from reapplying for registration indefinitely.
(c) Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher FDA [2017] QCAT 224: a 27-year-old teacher with only two years of experience formed a close relationship with a 17-year-old student. The conduct started with frequent social media, telephone and SMS communication shortly before the student’s school formal. The conduct escalated to a sexual relationship in January after the student graduated. There was no direct teacher/student relationship and the teacher had left the school which the student attended a year before the relationship commenced. The Tribunal cancelled the teacher’s registration, prohibited him from reapplying for registration for four years, and ordered a notation to be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration.
(d) Queensland College of Teachers v SGS [2017] QCAT 383 (‘SGS’): a 42-year-old teacher engaged in a long-standing sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student that commenced soon after the teacher was transferred to another school. The conduct included sexualised text messages, Facebook communication and ultimately sexual conduct and intercourse. The teacher continually denied the relationship and the allegations. The teacher and the student cohabitated together within three months of her graduating from school. The precise length of the sexual relationship is unknown, but it was for at least 10 months and possibly longer. The Tribunal prohibited the teacher from reapplying for registration for seven years (from the end of his provisional registration) and ordered a notation to be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration.
In each of those cases it was held that the ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act, or an equivalent provision under earlier legislation, had been established. In broad terms, all of the above decisions can be characterised as involving improper or overfamiliar communications and sexual relationships with students or former students, in circumstance where the teachers were or had been in a position of authority over the students.
The relevant facts in the present matter, including the favouritism given to the students and the inappropriate and sexualised communications, which led to a sexual relationship with the then former student, are such that the Tribunal is satisfied that a ground for disciplinary action under s 92(1)(h) of the Education Act is established. RLT has behaved in a way that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
Sanction
On the agreed facts, relevant to deciding the appropriate sanction, RLT:
(a)engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar interactions with a student, as set out at [14](a) above, while she was in years 10 to 12 at school;
(b)after that student graduated, commenced a personal and ultimately sexual relationship with her;
(c)engaged in inappropriate and overfamiliar email communications with another year 11 student and, when giving her a birthday card, requested that she not inform any third party about the card.
Applicant’s submissions
The QCT submits that RLT’s conduct in relation to student A is particularly serious. RLT took advantage of her admiration of him and that there was a clear escalation in his overfamiliarity with her during her final year of schooling, effectively grooming the student for the later sexual relationship. The inappropriate relationship was protracted, commencing in 2013 and not ending until mid-2018. Reference is made to an email communication sent to then former student A, in which RLT refers to a meeting with her in the computer room when she was in year 12 and states that he was staring down her blouse and his sexual arousal was such that he had to stay in the computer room for some time.[9]
[9]While in his record of interview RLT said that the content of this email was effectively a lie, as he was trying to make his affair with her ‘as good as it could be’, he did ‘see down her blouse at her breasts’ but ‘didn’t stare’: record of interview dated 25 July 2019 at 1637.
It is submitted that at the relevant time RLT was a mature man with significant experience as a teacher and should have known the accepted boundaries for a teacher. Reference is also made to an incident in 2005 where RLT sought a romantic relationship with Student B, in relation to which a warning was given but no disciplinary action was taken.
It is further submitted that during his interview, RLT attempted to avoid responsibility for the sexual relationship, portraying student A as the pursuer while he simply wanted to be friends and that ‘it’s a way out for me at least’.[10] It is submitted that his ‘attempts at obfuscation’, coupled with his conduct over a number of years, are indicative of a risk that RLT may again engage in similar behaviour.[11]
[10]Record of interview dated 25 July 2019 at 1650.
[11]Applicant’s submissions filed on 19 August 2024, 10.
Reference is also made to an email communication of July 2018 from Student A’s mother, in which she describes how their lives have been ‘turned upside down’.
On the other hand, the QCT notes that in July 2018, though only after his conduct came to light, RLT sent an email to student A’s mother, apologising for what he had done.
The QCT submits that most guidance should be taken from the decision in SGS (see [16](d), above), given the comparable ages and experience of the teachers, the similar circumstances in which the relationships developed, and that the sexual relationship did not occur until the teacher/student relationship had ended.[12] Features that distinguish SGS from this matter are that in SGS the sexual relationship was over an extended period and the teacher did not assist in the investigation, though he made admissions during the Tribunal proceedings.[13] On the other hand, with RLT there was disclosure of his pursuit of a relationship with another former student, in relation to which he was given a caution, and the present conduct concerns two students.
[12]Queensland College of Teachers v SGS [2017] QCAT 383 (‘SGS’).
[13]Ibid.
Having noted the QCT had not at that time seen any submissions from RLT, it is submitted that unless there is some compelling evidence from RLT that he has reformed or is likely to change his behaviour, the Tribunal should consider whether an indefinite suspension is appropriate. Alternatively, consistent with the sanction imposed in SGS, RLT should be prohibited from reapplying for registration for no less than seven years.[14] It is further submitted that, in any event, there should be an order that a notation be made requiring a psychologist report should he again seek registration.
[14]Ibid.
Respondent’s submissions
Submissions were filed on behalf of RLT by his legal representative. It is submitted that following the referral of 16 April 2024, RLT filed a response admitting the allegations and accepting that disciplinary grounds had been established, thus avoiding the need for an oral hearing and the calling of witnesses. It is further submitted that he has demonstrated remorse and insight through taking full responsibility, accepting that there was no excuse for his conduct and through seeking psychological services of his own volition. He engaged with his psychologist on approximately a monthly basis from July 2018 to June 2020. In an attached report dated 12 September 2024, the psychologist states that RLT has been ‘open and honest’ about his disciplinary matter and that, ‘in our most recent session’, she was happy to hear him ‘own his behaviour … and the consequence it had on the students and school involved’. Further, RLT stated that he is aware that in his role as teacher ‘he had a great deal of responsibility and power’. It was noted that he ‘took responsibility for crossing boundaries and misusing his position of power’. It was added that RLT expressed ‘great remorse’ for his actions and their consequences and made it clear that ‘because he understood his abuse of power and the impact, he would not act in this manner again’.
In addition to the decisions noted in the submissions of the QCT, RLT refers in particular to the decision in Queensland College of Teachers v HMJ (‘HMJ’).[15] In that case there were overfamiliar and sexualised communications between the 49-year-old female teacher and a year 12 male student, including discussions about the student’s anxiety and drug taking. The discussions about anxiety were not disclosed by the teacher to the school or the student’s parents. After the year 12 formal, the teacher and the student engaged in sexual intercourse. At that time, the teacher also allowed him to drink alcohol in a hotel room. The student graduated two days later. At the time, the teacher had a sexually transmitted illness (‘STI’), of which she advised the student. While the student was subsequently anxious about this, as well as the fact of intercourse, he did not contract the STI. It was found that the teacher cooperated with the investigation process and showed some insight into her behaviour. She was prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a period of six years from the date of the termination of her employment at the relevant school. The termination followed the investigation into her conduct.
[15][2016] QCAT 447 (‘HMJ’).
RLT submits that there are similarities as between the present case and the decision in HMJ, in that both teachers were heads of departments and there was a similar age disparity between them and the students, as well as similarities in relation to expressions of remorse and assisting with the administration of justice.[16] However, in the present case, the sexual relationship did not occur in circumstances where the teacher knew that they had a STI. On the other hand, while RLT did not have sexual intercourse with the student before she completed year 12, his sexual relationship was more protracted than in the case of HMJ.[17]
[16]Ibid.
[17]Ibid.
In relation to the decision in SGS, RLT submits that the distinguishing conduct is that the teacher consistently denied the allegations and relationship, the sexual relationship commenced when the student was still at school, albeit a different school, and at the time of the decision the teacher was still in a relationship with the former student.[18] On the other hand, it is accepted that RLT’s conduct involved two separate students, while with SGS only one student was involved.[19]
[18]SGS (n 14).
[19]Ibid.
RLT submits that a prohibition of six years is within range in the present matter and that account should be taken of the delay by the QCT in bringing the disciplinary proceedings. It is noted that RLT was initially suspended on 26 March 2020 and was removed from the register on 7 April 2021. He has not been able to teach for a little over four years and seven months.
RLT does not oppose the placing of an endorsement on the register of teachers requiring a satisfactory psychological report, as proposed by the QCT, and, as with the QCT, also seeks a non-publication order.
Discussion
The relevant conduct in relation to the present matter is indicated above, as are analogous decisions in relation to sanction. While very rarely will there be precise parallels between any two matters, prior decisions can be a useful guide as to the appropriate sanction. It remains that there can be some difficulty in weighing, relative to the present matter, the factors in those other cases that might have indicated a greater or lesser sanction.
However, significant parallels exist between the decisions in SGS and HMJ and the present matter.[20] In each of these three matters the respondents were experienced teachers, there were very significant age differences between the teachers and students, and there were inappropriate and overfamiliar interactions between the teachers and the students while the latter were still at school. With RLT, the sexual relationship commenced after the student graduated from school, in HMJ it occurred two days before the student graduated, while with SGS it commenced after the student was transferred to another school.[21]
[20]SGS (n 14); HMJ (n 17).
[21]Ibid.
Significant differences also exist between these matters. While with RLT and in HMJ there was cooperation with the investigators and displays of insight, SGS continually denied the relationship and allegations.[22] With RLT and in HMJ there was a direct teacher-student relationship, which was not the case with SGS.[23] In the present matter there was an earlier relationship with a student, which was not evident in either SGS or HMJ.[24] In HMJ there were also the considerations that the teacher had a STI, had not disclosed to the school or the student’s parents her knowledge as to the student’s anxiety, and had allowed the student to consume alcohol in her presence.[25]
[22]Ibid.
[23]Ibid.
[24]Ibid.
[25]HMJ (n 17).
In these circumstances, an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach would have been appropriate if the teacher were an approved teacher, rather than a former approved teacher. Accordingly, by s 161(2)(c) of the Education Act, the Tribunal is required to make an order prohibiting RLT from reapplying for registration or permission to teach ‘for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely’.
This Tribunal considers that a prohibition order for a stated period is appropriate. It also considers that allowance should be made for any period of suspension or inability to teach that is attributable to the conduct in question. Otherwise the period of suspension would not simply be on account of the relevant conduct, but would also be impacted by the time taken by the QCT to commence disciplinary proceedings. As noted, RLT was suspended on 20 March 2020 and was removed from the register of teachers in April 2021. On that basis, he has not been able to teach for a period of almost 5 years and 8 months.
In all of the circumstances, we consider that the appropriate order is for RLT to be prohibited from reapplying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026. That gives an effective disqualification period of a little over 6 years and 8 months. An order should also be made pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of the Education Act that a notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register. The parties agree and this Tribunal considers that a non-publication order is appropriate to protect any former student or relevant third party. Identification of RLT or the school might lead to identification of those individuals.[26]
[26]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 66.
Orders
The following orders are made:
1. The disciplinary ground in s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Education Act’) is established.
Pursuant to s 161(2)(c) of the 2. Education Act, Teacher RLT is prohibited from re-applying for registration or permission to teach until 30 November 2026.
Pursuant to s 161(2)(d) of 3. the Education Act, a notation is to be entered in the register of teachers that should Teacher RLT apply for registration or permission to teach after the expiry of the prohibition period, the application must include an independent psychologist’s report satisfactory to the Queensland College of Teachers addressing the following:
(a) an assessment of the teacher’s appreciation of the following:
(i)the legal obligations of teachers;
(ii)differentiating between personal and professional relationships;
(iii)development and maintenance of professional standards when working with young people and actively determining and implementing professional boundaries with individual students;
(iv)personal and social behaviour that would compromise the professional standing of a teacher and the profession of teaching;
(v)what constitutes inappropriate communication;
(vi)understanding the effects of inappropriate relationships with students and former students;
(vii)the awareness of the trust and power granted to a teacher; and
(viii)understanding and full adherence to the Queensland College of Teachers’ Code of Ethics;
(b) the psychologist’s report must also include:
(i)an assessment from the psychologist of the likelihood of Teacher RLT engaging in a similar type of behaviour in the future;
(ii)an indication from the psychologist about whether the psychologist is satisfied that Teacher RLT has adequately understood and addressed the above;
(iii)confirmation that the psychologist was provided with copies of this decision and referral under s 97 of the Education Act.
(iv)the duration and frequency of visits and details of any testing that was undertaken.
Teacher RLT must bear all costs of, and associated with, compliance with these orders.
There be no order as to costs.
Pursuant to s 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding and their legal representatives and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information that may identify Teacher RLT, any relevant student, former student, other teacher, third party, or school, other than to the extent necessary for the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations, particularly under ss 285, 285AA, 285B, and 287 of the Education Act, or as necessary for Teacher RLT to comply with any disclosure requirements of any regulatory authority or employer.
0
9
1