he Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“QCAT”) determined yesterday that Mr Rowe’s termination of his daughters school enrolment contract with Emmanuel College on 26 May 2011 was effective. Emmanuel College had refused to accept Mr Rowe’s termination of the enrolment contract. Mr Rowe had requested the school terminate the enrolment contract at the school of his daughter as he could not longer could afford the school fees, however the school refused to release him from the contract as they argued, that termination “must come from both parents”. This decision by QCAT now paves the way forward for a Queensland Supreme Court negligence damages claim against the College and its directors for their actions.
Emmanuel College Gold Coast were always of the view that their enrolment contract required the consent of both parents to terminate, and any argument over the same must be determined by the Family Court. However, QCAT in their decision yesterday found this to be incorrect. At paragraph 24 of the decision, Mr C Brabazon Queens Counsel, Member of QCAT, and Judge of the Queensland District Court said:
“Mr Rowe was quite entitled to tell the Principal that he no longer wished to pay for Emily to stay at the school.”
and at paragraph 25:
“Mr Rowe complains that the school did not accept his termination notice. Indeed, the school tried to ignore it. But it is clear that his notice was effective. The Principal could not compel him to remain.”
and further at paragraph 26 of the decision:
“It is helpful to consider the Principal‘s understandable position about the effect of the enrolment contract. It must be said that, from a legal point of view, he was wrong.”
The continual refusal of Emmanuel College over the past two years to accept Mr Rowe’s termination of the enrolment contract has caused Mr Rowe severe financial and personal stress to the point he had developed a adjustive depressive disorder, cannot work full time, and only source of income a Sickness Allowance from Centrelink. In Mr Rowe’s own words, the conduct of the school in its refusal to accept his termination notice in circumstances where they should of accepted it has put Mr Rowe through “two years of hell”. Further, in the words of Mr Rowe, “these are not the actions of a true Christian School, but a school that only wishes to negligently line it’s pockets with parents money”.
It is not known how many other parents of the school have suffered loss as a result of the actions of the Principal Mr Graham Leo and his interpretation of the enrolment contract. How many other parents have tried to terminate the enrolment contract and been told that they are wrong, when it is the Principal that was clearly wrong. Mr Rowe encourages any other parents that have suffered loss as a result of the schools negligence similar to Mr Rowe to bring court action against the school as soon as possible.
The Gold Coast is a transitory town. People come and go from the Gold Coast, and it is likely that this situation has occurred to other separated parents, where one parent has to leave the city for work, can no longer afford the school fees, but is locked into the enrolment contract by Emmanuel College.
Mr Leo, the Principal of Emmanuel College is on record having saying to Mr Rowe that his actions “have no substance and will fail”. Well Mr Leo, my claims have substance and will not fail. You were wrong.
The QCAT decision did not decide everything in Mr Rowe’ favour. There is still the legal issues of whether the school can sue for defamation, whether Mr Rowe was afforded procedural fairness throughout the QCAT matter, whether Mr Rowe’s ex-wife had forged the enrolment documents in the first place, whether Mr Leo misled QCAT, and the impact the decision not to terminate the enrolment contract had on Mr Rowe. These issues are still in dispute and Mr Rowe will seek leave from the court to pursue these matters in the Queensland Court of Appeal.