A Queensland tribunal has found a school didn't discriminate against a student by requiring females to wear skirts to formal school occasions. 

The school's uniform policy stated girls in years seven to 12 needed to wear skirts to occasions including excursions, ceremonies, and class photographs while male students could wear shorts or trousers — their usual uniform.

The student, who is underage and therefore cannot be identified, alleged the school’s policy discriminated directly and indirectly against her as a female student.

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) judgement, examples of direct discrimination she alleged included suffering a greater financial burden than a male student by having to buy multiple sets of uniforms, needing to take greater care to maintain modesty when sitting, being colder than male students during formal events in the winter, and being less able to take part in physical activity on school outings compared to male students. 

The student also claimed the policy indirectly discriminated against female students by requiring they must be male to wear shorts or trousers, despite both items of clothing being everyday attire for women. 

The school described the allegations as "offensive and baseless".

It said formal occasions only made up around eight hours a year, unless the student was in the school band or was selected for other formal occasions, and none of the events included physical activity. 

The school also said students could apply for an exemption to the formal uniform policy. 

The complainant had applied for and been granted exemptions in the past.

The decision by QCAT member Jeremy Gordon found that while there was different treatment between the sexes, there wasn't enough evidence to conclude the school's uniform policy resulted in the student being treated unfairly because she was female.

Mr Gordon explained the student's family's financial circumstances meant they suffered no hardship in purchasing multiple sets of uniforms, and the school had skirts available on loan for formal occasions. 

He said while female students may feel the cold when in skirts during winter, the evidence submitted did not address whether stockings or tights would resolve that issue, or whether female students had an advantage during summer compared to male students wearing trousers. 

The concern of modesty was also dismissed by Mr Gordon given that the skirt was required to be long enough to touch the ground when kneeling, and the uniform policy permitted girls to wear shorts underneath their skirts. 

A submission that the uniform policy caused negative psychological effects by reinforcing gender stereotypes and power relations was withdrawn by the student and subsequently dismissed. 

The consequences for non-compliance of the uniform policy was found to be the same for both female and male students. 

The case was also found not to fit within the provisions of indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act.