The recent decision in Queensland College of Teachers v TBB [2025] QCAT 562 highlights the importance of always maintaining appropriate professional boundaries, including after students have graduated. The case also highlights the complexity of navigating professional boundaries in communities where there are strong cross-over relationships between school, church and community, and confirms that notwithstanding the complexity, an equally high standard of professionalism must be always maintained.

Proceedings were brought by the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) against one registered teacher (TBB), following concerns about TBB’s unprofessional conduct.

 

Facts and Allegations in Queensland College of Teachers v TBB

In the proceedings allegations were made against TBB that involved four students.

 

Student 1

Concerns first arose in September 2022 when the school principal discovered emails that QCT alleged were inappropriate, overfamiliar and unprofessional email communications with Student 1, a 17‑year‑old Year 12 student at the time. QCT alleged the emails went well beyond what was deemed as appropriate pastoral support and included:

• discussions of personal matters without a reasonable teaching or pastoral purpose
• TBB spoke about other teachers, and told Student 1 what other teachers had said about the student
• swearing, including swapping out some letters for symbols
• using and allowing the student to use terms of endearment, such as ‘xxx’ as symbol for kiss and ‘love you’
• emails occurred during and outside school hours and were frequent in number
• the teacher characterized the relationship as a friendship

Further, it was also alleged that TBB engaged in conduct towards Student 1 that was overfamiliar and unprofessional, as follows:

• exchanged telephone calls and SMS messages with Student 1 – sometimes the student used another student’s phone to communicate with the teacher so as to be undetected, noting that the school had already issued a directive to the teacher to stop communicating with Student 1
• purchasing personal gifts for the student – to thank Student 1 for helping to look after some of the teacher’s animals while the teacher was on holidays in July 2022
• allowing the student to attend the teacher’s house for dinner, after the teacher had been suspended, but NOTE: this occurred with permission of the student’s mother
• being photographed with student at a private function on the day of the student’s graduation from school – tribunal noted this occurred after the teacher had been directed to cease all communications with students at the school.
• commenced a sexual relationship with the student in the March following graduation from year 12

Student 2

In relation to student 2, the allegations were that TBB engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar and unprofessional email communications

• emails occurred during and outside school hours ranging from 5:33am on a Sunday morning to 11:25pm on a Tuesday night.
• the emails included discussion about personal matters not related to what the teacher was teaching Student 2, or related to school subjects that the teacher did not teach to Student 2. However, they were not of the same intimate or affectionate nature as the emails exchanged between teacher and Student 1.

Students 3 and 4

In relation to students 3 & 4, the allegations were TBB engaged in inappropriate, overfamiliar and unprofessional conduct by –

• allowing them to attend TBB’s residence and going hiking with them after graduation
• paying for and transporting Student 3 to a cooking master class after the student graduated from school
• teacher invited them to come back to her house after a football carnival – occurred with the knowledge and permission of the parents.
• Student 3 contacted the teacher to find out why the teacher was not at school – TBB responded by inviting them to TBB’s house to explain TBB had been directed not to attend school for reasons which appear to have led to their dismissal from employment at that school
• Both students moved away after graduation – TBB stayed in touch and encouraged them to meet with her when they returned for visits. TBB paid for and attended another social activity with both former students.
• TBB also gave them a housewarming gift.

These students later said they became uncomfortable with the relationship dynamics after graduation and while QCAT accepted that TBB’s conduct did not suggest sexual intent in relation to these two students, it demonstrated a broader failure to maintain appropriate professional distance.

 

Tribunal Proceedings

In responding to the allegations, TBB argued that –

• the frequency and informality of her email communications with Student 1 was inappropriate but claimed the content was not inappropriate or unprofessional ‘to such an extent that it needs to interfere with her ongoing employment’
• TBB had 18 years of teaching experience and had performed student protection training on numerous occasions
• TBB worked in a particular school system which ‘created an emphasis on pastoral care leading to a more personal relationship with students’
• TBB knew Student 1’s mother which ‘blurred’ the lines with Student 1
• TBB had ‘no improper interest’ in Student 1 and the nature of the conversations ‘were not improperly motivated or sexual in nature’

The Tribunal did not accept any of these arguments and indicated that TBB’s inappropriate conduct towards Student 1 during year 12 [66] was preparatory to the intimate sexual relationship that subsequently developed. That is, the teacher established a non-professional, personal, affectionate relationship with Student 1 which laid a foundation for an intimate relationship after Student 1 graduated.

In relation to students 2, 3, and 4 where there was no sexual relationship, the Tribunal said there was insufficient evidence to make out “grooming”, but the conduct was still a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries:

[88] We consider that conduct may constitute a failure to maintain appropriate boundaries in respect of teacher student relationships. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the current evidence that the teacher’s conduct in respect of students 2, 3 and 4 is sufficiently similar to her conduct with Student 1 to make a finding that she was engaging in a pattern of seeking out similarly inappropriate relationships.

Indeed, the Tribunal reminded us that –

[67] It is well established, that due to the authority that teachers have over students, disparities in age, maturity and a life experience and the inherent vulnerability of young people, there is an inherent power imbalance between teachers and student that students do not fully recognise or understand. By contrast, it is part of a teacher’s duty to recognise it and make sure they do not exploit it.

[68] That power imbalance takes time to dissipate and can still act on a student after they finish school. In addition to Student 1’s inherent vulnerability as a child, she was vulnerable because of her unstable family situation.

In coming to its decision, the Tribunal the Tribunal noted (amongst other things) that –

• TBB was in a direct teacher–student relationship with each student when the behavior commenced – there is an inherent power imbalance in the relationship, which continues after graduation. The duration after graduation can be impacted by factors such as the age gap and the student’s personal circumstances.
• TBB knew the students were 17 years old.
• in relation to student 1, the student was vulnerable due to experiencing family instability at the time the conduct was occurring. The student was living with another family in the community.
• TBB repeatedly disobeyed employer directions to cease communicating with students.

 

Findings

QCAT determined that the evidence overwhelmingly established that TBB had behaved in a manner that fell substantially below the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, in breach of s 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005. The Tribunal emphasised that teachers occupy a position of trust and authority, and that the public, the profession and the legislation all expect teachers to act in the best interests of students, maintain professional boundaries, and avoid conduct that may exploit or harm young people. This continues after graduation.

QCAT imposed a range of serious sanctions on TBB, including cancellation of registration and a prohibition on reapplying for more than two and a half years.

 

Expectations of Teacher Conduct

Teachers must always maintain strict professional boundaries and avoid conduct that is or could be constructed as inappropriate, overly familiar, or unprofessional. Teacher must not be supportive in ways that extend beyond appropriate pastoral care. Communications that appear benign can erode professionalism when persistent, personal or affectionate. This case also confirms that a relationship commencing after graduation does not absolve a teacher from wrongdoing.

Teacher’s are expected to recognise the inherent power imbalance and make sure they do not exploit it. Importantly, the Tribunal’s analysis confirms that intention is not determinative, and a teacher’s claim of well‑meaning motives cannot overcome the objective reality of a power imbalance and the inherent risk of harm. Teachers must recognise that their conduct, even outside school hours or beyond campus, is held to a high standard because of the trust conferred upon them and the vulnerability of their students.

 

Conclusion

Queensland College of Teachers v TBB stands as a significant reminder of the ethical and professional responsibilities attached to the teaching profession. The case underscores the enduring nature of the teacher‑student power imbalance, the serious consequences of blurred boundaries and the necessity for schools to respond promptly and robustly to any allegations suggesting inappropriate conduct. The decision not only protects students but also reinforces community confidence in the integrity of the teaching profession.

 

Looking for assistance?

If you need assistance or legal advice regarding the above, Vocare Law can well assist. Contact our office on 1300-VOC-LAW / 1300-862-529 or email: enquiry@vocarelaw.com.au

This article was written by Jack Macpherson and Eustacia Yates.

**The information contained herein does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice and is for general informational purposes only.