Appeal against Tribunal decision — teacher misconduct — serious misconduct — Education Act 1989, ss 356, 377, 378, 388, 404, 405 & 409 — Teaching Rules 2016, rr 9, 17 & 31 — The Code of Professional Responsibility: Examples in Practice, Education Council — Roberts v A Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand [2012] NZHC 3354 — Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2008] 2 NZLR 141 — Cole v Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing Council of New Zealand [2017] NZHC 1178 — Kacem v Bashir [2011] 2 NZLR 1 (SC) — A v Professional Conduct Committee HC Auckland CIV-2008-404-2927, 5 September 2008 — CAC v Teacher NZTDT 2009/6, 5 August 2009 — Duncan v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1996] 1 NZLR 513 — Morahan v Wellington Standards Committee 2 [2019] NZCA 221 — Thorne v Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand [2019] NZDC 14828. The appellant teacher appealed against a decision of the New Zealand Teachers’ Disciplinary Tribunal, which had found a charge of serious misconduct against the appellant proven. The allegations were that the appellant had attempted to remove a student's earphones and broke the earphones, did not de-escalate an aggressive situation, and had hit a student. The five grounds of appeal were that there were procedural flaws; that the Tribunal's decision was wrong in law and fact; that the Tribunal erred in its penalty; that the Tribunal erred in its process of imposing costs; and that it failed to take into account all relevant factors when declining to make a non-publication order. The appellant sought orders quashing the findings, penalties and costs imposed by the Tribunal, and an order preventing publication of the appellant's name and identifying details, including the name of the school and students. On the first ground, the Court reached the conclusion that correct procedure had been followed; on the second ground the Court upheld the Tribunal's findings and on the third ground the Court determined that the penalty imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The first three grounds of appeal were therefore dismissed. On the fourth ground in relation to costs, the Court found that the Tribunal should have allowed parties to make submissions on costs. The Court remitted the issue back to the Tribunal. On the fifth and final ground, the Court determined that there was no ability to appeal a refusal to make a non-publication order, and dismissed this ground. Judgment Date: 10 December 2021.