Thomas v NSW Education Standards Authority [2023] NSWCATAD 41

Thomas v NSW Education Standards Authority [2023] NSWCATAD 41

The Department's decision to place the Applicant on the Not To Be Employed list was because of misconduct, namely a demonstrated breach of confidentiality by airing grievances to the media. That misconduct reflected adversely on his professional standing and integrity because it breached confidentiality obligations and showed a failure to engage professionally and ethically with colleagues and comply with organisational processes. Suspension was therefore warranted. However, by the time of review more than two years had passed, the misconduct was isolated and at the lower end of seriousness, the Applicant had taken steps to remove the article, showed insight and remorse, and recurrence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of Decision to Suspend Provisional Teacher Accreditation / Reconsideration by Differently Constituted Tribunal After Appeal Panel Remittal; Principal Judgment
Outcome
NESA's decision to suspend the Applicant's accreditation was varied so that the suspension ended on the date of publication of the Tribunal's decision.
Legal Topics
['teacher Accreditation' 'suspension of Accreditation' 'not to Be Employed List' 'misconduct' 'breach of Confidentiality' 'correct and Preferable Decision']
['administrative Law' 'education Law' 'professional Regulation'] ['teacher Accreditation' 'suspension of Accreditation' 'not to Be Employed List' 'misconduct' 'breach of Confidentiality' 'correct and Preferable Decision']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of Decision to Suspend Provisional Teacher Accreditation / Reconsideration by Differently Constituted Tribunal After Appeal Panel Remittal; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's inclusion on the Department's Not To Be Employed list was because of misconduct for the purposes of s 24(1)(e)(ii) of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW)." "Whether the nature of the misconduct reflected adversely on the Applicant's professional standing, integrity, suitability or competence to teach." 'Whether, applying s 24B of the Teacher Accreditation Act 2004 (NSW), suspension of accreditation remained the correct and preferable decision and for what period.' 'Whether NESA could make independent findings of employment misconduct beyond those made by the Department.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Department's decision to place the Applicant on the Not To Be Employed list was because of misconduct, namely a demonstrated breach of confidentiality by airing grievances to the media. That misconduct reflected adversely on his professional standing and integrity because it breached confidentiality obligations and showed a failure to engage professionally and ethically with colleagues and comply with organisational processes. Suspension was therefore warranted. However, by the time of review more than two years had passed, the misconduct was isolated and at the lower end of seriousness, the Applicant had taken steps to remove the article, showed insight and remorse, and recurrence...

Court Disposition

NESA's decision to suspend the Applicant's accreditation was varied so that the suspension ended on the date of publication of the Tribunal's decision.

Orders

  • ["The decision of NESA, made on 24 February 2021, is varied by removing the requirement that the Applicant's accreditation is suspended until his name is removed from the Department's Not To Be Published List to a decision that his accreditation is suspended until the date of the publication of this decision."]