Howe v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) - [2003] NSWADTAP 14

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Howe -v- Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 14

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Dr Peter Allan Howe
RESPONDENT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee

FILE NUMBER: 039033

HEARING DATES: 27/05/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/27/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
05/29/2003

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe [2002] NSWADT 191; Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 156

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Montgomery S - Judicial Member; McGilvray G - Member

CATCHWORDS: interim order

MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 023033

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 05/13/2003

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

CASES CITED: Barwick -v- Law Society of New South Wales (LSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 21
Robb and Rees v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (unreported, Fed Ct, 21 June 1996)
New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95
Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 70 ALJR 306
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Soulemizis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Woodside & anor -v- Director General, Department of Community Services (CSD) [2000] NSWADTAP 8
Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435
CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67
Law Society of New South Wales -v- Young (No.2) (LSD) [2001] NSWADTAP 19
Z -v- University of A, Dr D & B (No.4) [2002] NSWADT 14
John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131
John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465
Howe v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2003] NSWCA 120
Howe v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & ors [2003] NSWSC 157

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
P Robinson, solicitor
RESPONDENT
M Wade, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The application is dismissed; 2. The decision in relation to the costs of the application is reserved; 3. Matter to be re-listed before the President for directions.

1 The appellant, Dr Howe, a registered veterinary surgeon, has been found guilty of professional misconduct by a Veterinary Disciplinary Panel of the General Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal) exercising jurisdiction conferred by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (the Act), Part 4, Division 4. The findings in relation to guilty were the subject of a decision delivered on 30 September 2002. The Tribunal also issued 'proposed final orders' of a kind permitted to be made pursuant to s 32 of the Act. The proposed final orders were the subject of a further hearing on 9 December 2002, with written submissions closing on 13 January 2003. The proposed final orders were confirmed in a decision issued on 13 May 2003.
2 The orders were that the name of Dr Howe be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons (as permitted by s 32(1)(c) of the Act). The Tribunal further ordered that he may apply for restoration of his name to the register after two years…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Howe v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWADTAP 14
Decision Date: 05/29/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Howe v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) involved the applicant seeking an interim order against the Committee. The applicant, presumably an individual aggrieved by a decision of the Committee, aimed to challenge that decision through the court. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to the relief sought by way of an interim order. This case was before the court, whose specific designation was not provided in the text, but it was a court with the authority to hear and determine applications for interim orders.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicant had established a strong prima facie case warranting an interim order. The court needed to assess the merits of the applicant's case to determine whether there was a sufficient likelihood that the applicant would succeed at a trial. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the interim order was not granted. The court's analysis involved weighing the applicant's arguments against the principles of equity and fairness, as well as the relevant legal standards governing interim orders.

The court ultimately dismissed the application for an interim order. The reasoning provided by the court indicated that the applicant had not met the necessary threshold to warrant the granting of such an order. The court found that the applicant's case did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success, and furthermore, that the applicant had not shown sufficient irreparable harm if the order was not granted. As a result, the court concluded that the application should be dismissed. The decision regarding the costs of the application was reserved, meaning the court would address this matter at a later stage. The case was to be re-listed before the President for further directions, likely to outline the next steps in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed; 2. The decision in relation to the costs of the application is reserved; 3. Matter to be re-listed before the President for directions.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Howe -v- Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2003] NSWADTAP 14
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Dr Peter Allan Howe RESPONDENT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
FILE NUMBER:	039033
HEARING DATES:	27/05/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	05/27/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	05/29/2003
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe [2002] NSWADT 191; Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 156
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Montgomery S - Judicial Member; McGilvray G - Member
CATCHWORDS:	interim order
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	023033
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	05/13/2003
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
CASES CITED:	Barwick -v- Law Society of New South Wales (LSD) [2002] NSWADTAP 21 Robb and Rees v The Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (unreported, Fed Ct, 21 June 1996) New South Wales Bar Association v Stevens [2003] NSWCA 95 Bryant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1996) 70 ALJR 306 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Soulemizis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Woodside & anor -v- Director General, Department of Community Services (CSD) [2000] NSWADTAP 8 Council of the City of Greater Wollongong v Cowan (1955) 93 CLR 435 CDJ v VAJ [1998] HCA 67 Law Society of New South Wales -v- Young (No.2) (LSD) [2001] NSWADTAP 19 Z -v- University of A, Dr D & B (No.4) [2002] NSWADT 14 John Fairfax Group Pty Ltd v Local Court of New South Wales (1991) 26 NSWLR 131 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of NSW (1986) 5 NSWLR 465 Howe v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2003] NSWCA 120 Howe v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & ors [2003] NSWSC 157
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT P Robinson, solicitor RESPONDENT M Wade, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The application is dismissed; 2. The decision in relation to the costs of the application is reserved; 3. Matter to be re-listed before the President for directions.