Court Opinion
Written by Brokyy_ on 21/Aug/2026 11:32:00 PM UTC
The Court finds that P4, S1(1) does not require the second offence to be the same type of offence as the first.
The Strike System provides that a first offence results in a formal warning, a second offence results in one Strike, a third offence results in a second Strike, and a fourth offence results in a third Strike and termination.
The provision refers generally to a person's first, second, third and fourth offences. It does not state that each offence must involve the same provision or the same type of conduct.
Therefore, a warning issued for one breach of the Code of Conduct may still be relevant where the individual later commits a different offence.
However, the Court does not consider every warning to remain relevant to a person's disciplinary progression indefinitely. Whether a later offence should progress the Strike System should depend on whether the previous warning still reasonably forms part of the same disciplinary period.
In making that determination, the relevant authority should consider:
1. The time between the offences
2. The nature and circumstances of the offences
3. Whether the later conduct is a repeated breach of the same or a similar rule
4. Whether the individual has maintained a period without further disciplinary issues between the offences
A repeated breach of the same provision within a short period would strongly support progression through the Strike System. For example, where an individual receives a warning for coloured or clip-art chat and commits the same offence again several days later, the later offence may properly result in a Strike.
The offences do not, however it needs to be identical. For example, where an individual receives a warning for coloured chat and shortly afterwards breaches the prohibition on avatar effects, the second violation may still progress the individual to a Strike where the original warning remains reasonably relevant.
On the other hand, where a substantial period has passed without further disciplinary issues, an earlier warning should not automatically continue to increase the punishment for unrelated conduct indefinitely. In those circumstances, a later offence may reasonably be treated as a new first offence and result in a new warning.
The Court declines to establish a fixed period after which a warning automatically ceases to be relevant. The Act expressly provides a fourteen-day expiry period for Strikes, but does not provide an equivalent expiry period for warnings. Any fixed expiry period for warnings would therefore be a matter for legislation rather than judicial interpretation.
HOLDING
For the purposes of P4, S1(1) of the Code of Conduct Act 2025:
1. A second offence does not have to be a breach of the same rule as the first offence;
2. Different offences may still progress the Strike System where the previous warning remains reasonably relevant;
3. Repeated breaches of the same or similar provision within a short period strongly support progression to the next disciplinary stage;
4. The timing and circumstances between offences must be considered;
5. Where a substantial period has passed without further disciplinary issues, a later offence may reasonably be treated as a new first offence; and
6. No fixed expiry period for warnings is created by this interpretation.
Accordingly, the petitioner's example of receiving a warning for coloured chat and later committing a different offence, such as using avatar effects, may result in a Strike where the original warning remains reasonably relevant based on the timing and circumstances of the offences.
This interpretations majority opinion came from dreckly the Chief Justice, alongside Senior Associate Justice faaaaiiitthh, Associate Justice Inconclusive, Associate Justice Brokyy_.
