PAUL and TEACHER REGISTRATION BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASAT 83

[2026] WASAT 83 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : TEACHER REGISTRATION ACT 2012 (WA) CITATION : PAUL and TEACHER REGISTRATION BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASAT 83 MEMBER : PRESIDENT GLANCY HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 10 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : VR 41 of 2026 BETWEEN : TALIT MAHMOOD AHMED PAUL Applicant AND TEACHER REGISTRATION BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent Catchwords: Vocational regulation - Teacher - Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) Applicant's registration cancelled pursuant to s 28 of the Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) following written request of the Applicant - Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the cancellation - Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) s 124(2) - Whether Tribunal can look behind the request for cancellation - Assertion of Applicant that request was made under duress - Finding that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the review - Application for review misconceived or lacking in substance Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review conditions imposed on registration before registration cancelled - Utility of any such review - Finding that application for review of conditions of registration subsequently cancelled under -- 1 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 2 Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) s 28 frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance Legislation: Mental Health Act 2014 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9, s 32(2)(b), s 47, s 47(2), s 60(2) State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9 Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA), s 28, s 124, s 124(1), s 124(2), s 124(2)(e) Result: Application dismissed pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : N/A Respondent : N/A Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : State Solicitor's Office Case(s) referred to in decision(s): ACC v Mental Health Tribunal [2025] WASCA 79 Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104 Laurent and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254; (2009) 68 SR (WA) 165 Ludlow and Legal Practice Board [No 2] [2025] WASAT 131 Ludlow v Legal Practice Board [2026] WASCA 79 Re Reddish and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AAT 721 -- 2 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 3 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 The Applicant, Mr Talit Paul, has applied for a review of the following decisions: 1. a decision made on 17 September 2025 to cancel his registration as a teacher, at his request, made under s 28 of the Teacher Registration Act 2012 (WA) (TR Act); and 2. an earlier decision made on 12 September 2025 by a delegate of the Teacher Registration Board of Western Australia (also referred to as the Board or the Respondent throughout these reasons) to impose conditions on his registration as a teacher. 2 The Respondent has applied for an order that the application be dismissed under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) on the grounds that the application is misconceived. It says that because the Applicant had his registration cancelled at his request under s 28 of the TR Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct a review and his application is, therefore, misconceived. It also says that because his registration has now been cancelled, there is no utility in any review of the conditions which were imposed on his registration, and so his attempt to review that decision is also misconceived. Issues 3 The issues for determination are: 1. Can a decision to cancel a teacher's registration made at the request of the teacher be reviewed by the Tribunal? 2. If not, in circumstances where a teacher's registration has been cancelled, is there any utility in reviewing the earlier decision to impose the conditions? 3. Where neither the cancellation or the earlier imposition of the conditions on the Applicant's teacher registration is reviewable, is the application for review frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance? -- 3 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 4 4 The Respondent has also submitted that the Applicant's application is out of time and that, even if the review could theoretically proceed, leave to do so should not be granted. Outcome 5 For the reasons set out below, I have concluded that the answers to each of issues 1 and 2 is no, while the answer to issue 3 is yes. It follows from those findings that the application for review must be dismissed under s 47 of the SAT Act. Determination of the application on the documents 6 The application for strike out or dismissal of the proceeding has been determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the SAT Act. 7 The documents to which I have had regard in determining the application are: 1. The Applicant's application (including annexures), lodged 9 April 2026; 2. The Applicant's written submissions, lodged 28 April 2026; 3. The document titled 'Disclosure & Legal Authority Matrix', lodged by the Applicant on 28 April 2026; 4. The document titled 'Applicants [sic] Minute of Proposed Directions' (including annexures), lodged by the Applicant on 11 May 2026; 5. The document titled 'Integrated Oral Submission' (including annexures), lodged by the Applicant on 11 May 2026; 6. The Applicant's written submissions (including annexures), lodged 12 May 2026; 7. The Applicant's written submissions (including annexures), lodged 26 May 2026; 8. The Respondent's written outline of submissions, lodged 2 June 2026; 9. The Respondent's bundle of documents, lodged 2 June 2026; -- 4 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 5 10. The Applicant's written submissions (including annexures), lodged 3 June 2026; and 11. The Applicant's written submissions (including annexures), lodged 17 June 2026.1 Section 47 SAT Act 8 Section 47 of the SAT Act provides as follows: 47. Frivolous etc. proceedings, dismissal of etc. (1) This section applies if the Tribunal believes that a proceeding - (a) is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or (b) is being used for an improper purpose; or (c) is otherwise an abuse of process. (2) If this section applies, the Tribunal may order that the proceeding be dismissed or struck out and make any appropriate orders. (3) The Tribunal's powers to act under subsection (2) are exercisable only by a legally qualified member. (4) The Tribunal may act under subsection (2) on the application of a party or on its own initiative. Principles to be applied in determining an application to dismiss under s 47 of the SAT Act 9 The Tribunal does not have formal pleadings. The informality of the Tribunal's procedures is provided for in s 32(2)(b) of the SAT Act which states that the Tribunal 'is to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms'. 10 The Tribunal has a power to dismiss claims much like a court's power to summarily dismiss a proceeding where the pleadings fail to disclose any reasonable cause of action. However, the Tribunal should be cautious about exercising the power because, without pleadings, a party's case might not be well articulated before the hearing. That is 1 Much of what was filed by the Applicant was repetitive and largely irrelevant to the resolution of the issues. -- 5 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 6 particularly so when a party is self-represented and does not have the benefit of legal representation or training which would enable them to precisely set out their claim in writing. 11 The authorities concerning applications to dismiss a proceeding pursuant to s 47 of the SAT Act provide that, when considering whether a proceeding should be dismissed, the Tribunal should assume that all the factual assertions made by the applicant would be made out at a final hearing, and consider whether the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance from that perspective. Where there are any questions of fact to be determined, or if factual issues may be affected by evidence in the possession of a party that has not yet been filed, it may not be appropriate to dismiss the proceeding under s 47 of the SAT Act at an interlocutory stage.2 12 The decision to dismiss should only be made after very careful consideration, and in circumstances where it is evident that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success in the proceeding. To allow a proceeding that has no prospects of succeeding to continue would be a waste of the Tribunal's limited resources, expose the party to an otherwise unnecessary costs order and would be inconsistent with the attainment of the Tribunal's principal objectives which are set out in s 9 of the SAT Act. Meaning of frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, and lacking in substance 13 In resolving this application I have applied the meanings of the word 'misconceived' and the expression 'lacking in substance' which were identified by the Tribunal in Laurent.3 In that case the Tribunal found that, when used in s 47 of the SAT Act, the term 'misconceived' connotes a misunderstanding of legal principle while the term 'lacking in substance' connotes an untenable proposition of law or fact. A frivolous application is one which is so trivial or that lacks a serious purpose, even if there is no malice in the bringing of the application, whereas an application which is vexatious is one brought for the purpose of annoying, embarrassing or harassing the Respondent. 2 Laurent and Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254; (2009) 68 SR (WA) 165 [20] (Laurent). 3 Laurent [51]. -- 6 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 7 Issue 1: Can a decision to cancel a teacher's registration, made at the request of the teacher, be reviewed by the Tribunal? 14 The Applicant's registration was cancelled at his written request on 17 September 2025.4 15 The cancellation occurred under s 28 of the TR Act which provides that the Board must cancel the registration of a teacher at the written request of the teacher. The use of the word 'must' in that context means that cancellation was mandatory. 16 Section 124 of the TR Act enables particular persons who are aggrieved by a reviewable decision to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.5 The persons who are able to apply for review under s 124(1) are: (a) a registered teacher or formerly registered teacher; (b) an applicant for a grant of registration under Part 3; (c) an applicant for a renewal of registration under Part 3; (d) an applicant for a change of category of registration under Part 3; (e) an employer of a person who holds, or held, limited registration. 17 The Applicant is someone who meets the requirements of s 124 because he is a formerly registered teacher. 18 The kinds of decisions which are reviewable are set out in s 124(2). They are a decision of: (a) the Board to refuse an application by the person under Part 3 for the grant of registration; or (b) the Board to refuse an application by the person under Part 3 for the renewal of registration; or (c) the Board to refuse an application by the person under Part 3 for a change of category of registration; or 4 Respondent's bundle of documents, pages 10 - 14, 16 - 18, 21. 5 An application for review must be made within 28 days of the date of the decision, and the right to have the decision reviewed by the Tribunal, being communicated to the applicant in writing: State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9(a). In this case Mr Paul has applied for review well outside that time. Therefore, leave to commence the review out of time would be required if the Board's application under s 47 of the SAT Act is dismissed. -- 7 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 8 (d) the Board to impose a condition on the person's registration under section 26 when granting or renewing that registration or changing the category of registration; or (e) the Board to impose, modify or cancel a condition under section 26 during the currency of the person's registration; or (f) the Board to cancel the person's registration under section 27; or (g) a disciplinary committee to deal with a complaint about the person under section 70(1)(a)(i), (iii) or (iv) or (b) or (2); or (h) the impairment review committee to deal with a complaint against the person under section 78(1)(a); or (i) the Board to make an order or obtain an undertaking against the person under section 80(1)(b) or (2); or (j) the Board to refuse to cancel under section 82(1) a condition on the person's registration. 19 The Applicant says that he did not make his request voluntarily. He says that the cancellation was 'procured under duress'.6 He says that he had been placed in an impossible situation because 'the Board had imposed restrictive conditions based on a contaminated investigation'. 20 He says that the request to cancel his registration was made while he was in 'a state of fear, shock and anxiety' as a consequence of having received the Respondent's earlier correspondence informing him of conditions which had been imposed on his registration, which correspondence he describes as 'legalistic'.7 21 He submits that s 28 of the TR Act is not a complete bar to review where cancellation is procured by the Respondent's unlawful conduct or conditions that he was powerless to contest without the resources which the Respondent had denied him. 22 I do not accept that the Applicant acted under duress. Requesting the cancellation 'under duress' would mean that the Applicant was being somehow forced to sign the request for cancellation of his registration. I have reviewed the relevant documents and there is nothing in any communication from the Board that has the slightest appearance of an attempt to pressure him to ask to cancel his registration. From what he 6 Applicant's 3 June 2026 submissions, page 4; Applicant's 26 May 2026 submissions, page 2; Applicant's 12 May 2026 submissions, pages 1 - 2. 7 Applicant's 3 June 2026 submissions, page 4; Applicant's 26 May 2026 submissions, page 2; Applicant's 12 May 2026 submissions, pages 2, 5. -- 8 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 9 has written about being in a state of shock, fear and anxiety, one might conclude that the Applicant had meant to say that he was under stress when he sought to have his registration cancelled. That would be understandable given his circumstances. He had experienced what he alleges was a toxic work environment at the school at which he last taught (the cause of which I do not need to consider), he had been informed that the Department was investigating concerns that had arisen in relation to his conduct as a teacher, and while that investigation was ongoing, conditions were to be imposed on his registration. He was also involved in proceedings in the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC). He regarded himself to have been 'constructively forced' to leave Australia and ultimately spent time travelling between the UK and Ukraine to be with family members in Ukraine. He may well have felt he had no choice but to request the cancellation of his teacher registration in order to avoid having to comply with the conditions and to avoid the investigation. 23 It is clear from the TR Act that the cancellation of a registration under s 28 of the TR Act is not a decision which is reviewable under s 124(2). That is certainly unsurprising. Indeed, one might argue that no decision is actually made by the Board when it receives a request from a registered teacher to cancel the teacher' registration and is required, by s 28 of the TR Act, to cancel the registration. 24 Even if the Applicant acted under some form of compulsion, or feeling that he had no option but to seek to have his registration cancelled, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to look behind the cancellation of a teacher's registration to determine whether the teacher's request was voluntarily made. It also has no jurisdiction to review the mandatory cancellation of a registration under s 28 of the TR Act. Accordingly, the application for review is misconceived and must be dismissed under s 47 of the SAT Act. 25 If the cancellation is voidable because the request was not made freely and voluntarily as the Applicant suggests, relying on Barton v Armstrong,8 that is not a matter which can be dealt with by the Tribunal which, as a creature of statute, only has powers conferred upon it by the SAT Act or a relevant enabling Act. 8 Barton v Armstrong [1976] AC 104. -- 9 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 10 Issue 2: Is there any utility in reviewing the earlier decision to impose conditions on the Applicant's registration? 26 On 11 September 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant informing him that it had formed the preliminary view that certain specified conditions should be imposed on his teacher registration. They were said to be being imposed 'in the interests of mitigating risk' because the Board had received information about him that gave it cause to make further inquiries. This was because the Board had received information that he may have engaged in serious misconduct whilst a registered teacher.9 He was given the opportunity to provide a response. 27 The condition imposed, notice of which was ultimately given to the Applicant on 15 September 2025, was as follows:10 As the Board has received information about you that gives cause for further inquiries to be made, in the interests of mitigating risk: 1. You are to inform the Board in writing within seven (7) days of your current employment status. 2. You are to advise the Board in writing within three (3) days of receiving any future offer of employment as a teacher and prior to commencement in the position. 28 The Applicant provided a response to that letter and the Board, having considered his response, remained of the view that the conditions should be imposed. 29 The conditions on the Applicant's teacher registration were then imposed on or around 12 September 2025. 30 A decision to review conditions imposed on a teacher's registration is a reviewable decision under s 124(1) of the TR Act, because it is a decision of the kind referred to in s 124(2)(e). Nevertheless, the Board submits that there is no utility in reviewing the decision to impose the conditions on the Applicant's teacher registration because the Applicant's registration has now been cancelled. 31 In ACC v Mental Health Tribunal11 the Court of Appeal made the following finding in the context of an application for review of a 9 It is to be noted that the Applicant says, and the Respondent did not deny, that the ultimate finding was that 'no reportable offence' was established. 10 Respondent's bundle of documents, page 7. 11 ACC v Mental Health Tribunal [2025] WASCA 79 [33]. -- 10 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 11 decision made under the Mental Health Act 2014 (WA), the operation of which had, by the time the application for review was made, expired: Once the decision under review has ceased to have any operative effect, the proceeding for review of that decision can properly be characterised as frivolous, misconceived or lacking in substance within the meaning of s 47(1)(a) of the SAT Act. 32 Similarly, in Re Reddish and Civil Aviation Safety Authority12 the Deputy President of the AAT held that proceedings for review should be dismissed if the Tribunal is unable to make a decision favourable to the applicant that has some practical effect, as distinct from a mere vindication of them. 33 In Ludlow and Legal Practice Board [No 2]13 I said that dealing with a review of a decision to refuse to grant a practising certificate after the registration year had passed would generally be of no utility, but accepted that there may be some cases where such utility could be demonstrated by an applicant for review that would justify the review being determined. In that case, the applicant did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that there was any real utility in allowing the review to proceed and as a result, I dismissed the review application under s 47 of the SAT Act on the basis that it was frivolous, misconceived and lacking in substance. In Ludlow v Legal Practice Board14 the Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion that there was no practical utility in reviewing a decision for a fiscal year which had already passed when the certificate which may have been able to be granted following a successful review would already have expired. 34 In this case, unlike a legal practising certificate, a teacher's teacher registration is valid for a term of five years. Although the Applicant has filed many pages of submissions, he has not identified any reason why it would be necessary, or of real benefit to him, to have the Tribunal review the conditions which were imposed on his teacher registration nearly 12 months ago in circumstances where the cancellation of his registration is not itself reviewable. 12 Re Reddish and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [1999] AAT 721 [24]. 13 Ludlow and Legal Practice Board [No 2] [2025] WASAT 131 [69]. 14 Ludlow v Legal Practice Board [2026] WASCA 79. -- 11 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 12 Issue 3: Where neither the cancellation nor the earlier imposition of conditions on the Applicant's registration is reviewable, is the application, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance? 35 Given that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision to cancel the Applicant's registration, his application is misconceived. 36 In the circumstances, and where the review of the conditions would be of no utility, the application for review of the conditions is frivolous, misconceived or lacking in substance. Leave 37 Given the view I have taken in relation to the application of s 47 of the SAT Act, it is not strictly necessary to determine the issue of whether I would grant leave to commence the review proceeding out of time. In the circumstances of this case, I would not have granted leave for the following reasons. 38 First, the delay is significant. The imposition of conditions on the teacher registration and the cancellation of that registration occurred some 10 months ago. 39 Secondly, I do not accept that the explanation for the delay is adequate. The Applicant relies on the fact that he was told on 4 March 2026 by the Respondent that it was 'awaiting the outcome of his WAIRC matter' as an explanation for why he had not brought the application sooner. He called this a 'regulatory misdirection'. It is not clear from that submission what the Respondent was waiting to do, but the Applicant says it created in him a reasonable belief that the regulatory matter was stayed pending that outcome. I do not understand how that communication could reasonably have created in the Applicant's mind a belief that he would not have to commence any review proceeding in the Tribunal when, by inference, he must have known of the relevant 28-day requirement. 40 Thirdly, the Applicant relies upon the fact that he was in an active war zone and dealing with personal distress throughout this period. He says he and his wife have been taking turns to be with family members in Ukraine and travel between the UK and Ukraine when it is safe to do so. Clearly, the Applicant had not been in Ukraine continuously between 15 September 2025 and the date on which he lodged his review application. Since lodging the application, he has -- 12 of 13 -- [2026] WASAT 83 Page 13 managed to file numerous sets of submissions and bundles of documents and he has been able to participate in these proceedings from the UK without difficulty. He has not provided any material to establish that he was unable to attend to filing a review application while in the UK. 41 Fourthly, I do not accept the Applicant's submission that the delay in bringing the proceeding is not the result of neglect but a result of 'extraordinary circumstances impacting his capacity to navigate complex statutory timelines'. With respect to the Applicant, the timelines are not complex. An application for review must be filed within 28 days of a reviewable decision being made. Orders 42 In light of the above I will make the following order: 1. Pursuant to s 47(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the application VR 41 of 2026 is dismissed on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. JD Associate to the Hon Justice Glancy 10 JULY 2026 -- 13 of 13 --