LLoyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committe (No 3) (GD) - [2006] NSWADTAP 21

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: LLoyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committe (No 3) (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 21
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Ronald George Lloyd
RESPONDENT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee

FILE NUMBER: 059082

HEARING DATES: 4/04/2006

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/04/2006

DATE OF DECISION:
05/16/2006

BEFORE: Chesterman M - ADCJ (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Carter T - Non Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: penalty

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 40004, 40005 and 40015 of 1998

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 09/22/2004

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

CASES CITED: Burton v Anderson, Unreported, Court of Appeal, NSW, CA 40030/92, 28 October 1994
Gelderman v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 27
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 2
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (No 2) (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 15
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 (‘Chisel’), 2 (‘Gypsy’) and 3 (‘Remus’)) [2004] NSWADT 208

REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT
B Green, solicitor
RESPONDENT
M Wade, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The appeal is allowed; 2. Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004 are set aside; 3. No order as to the costs of the rehearing of the appeal or, subject to paragraph [89] of these reasons, as to the costs of the first hearing; 4. The parties are to comply with the directions contained in paragraphs [84], [85] and [89] of these reasons

The background to this decision

1 This is the second hearing by this Appeal Panel of an appeal by Dr Ronald George Lloyd, a registered veterinary surgeon, against disciplinary orders made against him under s 32 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (‘the VS Act’) by a Veterinary Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal. These orders were made in a decision dated 22 September 2004 (Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 (‘Chisel’), 2 (‘Gypsy’) and 3 (‘Remus’)) [2004] NSWADT 208 – hereafter ‘the penalty decision’).

2 Following the first hearing of Dr Lloyd’s appeal, which took place on 6 December 2004, we dismissed the appeal. We did so in a decision dated 10 January 2005 (Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 2 – hereafter ‘the penalty appeal decision’).

3 Our reasons for so doing stemmed from two propositions, neither of which was contested at the hearing. These were (1) that Dr Lloyd’s appeal, while instituted under s 34(1) of the VS Act in the form that it then took, was subject to the provisions of ss 112 and 113 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (‘the ADT Act’); and (2) that under s 113(2), as interpreted in a series of Appeal Panel decisions, an appellant had first to establish an error of law in the judgment under appeal before being permitted to seek leave for the appeal to extend to…

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 LLoyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committe (No 3) (G... 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: [2006] NSWADTAP 21
Decision Date: 16/05/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (No 3) (GD) is a case where the appellant, Mr Lloyd, challenged the penalty imposed on him by the respondent, the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee. The dispute arose from Mr Lloyd's professional misconduct and the subsequent penalty determined by the Committee. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue the court needed to address was whether the penalty imposed by the Committee was lawful and proportionate, given the circumstances of Mr Lloyd's misconduct.

The court examined whether the penalty was within the Committee's authority, and whether the Committee had adequately considered all relevant factors in determining the penalty. The court also assessed whether the penalty was proportionate to the misconduct and whether the Committee had exercised its discretion reasonably. In examining these issues, the court took into account the nature and severity of Mr Lloyd's misconduct, as well as the objectives of veterinary regulation and public protection.

After a thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the penalty imposed by the Committee was not proportionate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Mr Lloyd's misconduct. The court also determined that the Committee had not sufficiently considered all relevant factors in determining the penalty. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed by the Committee was set aside. The court ordered a rehearing of the matter, with specific directions for the Committee to follow in determining the appropriate penalty. The parties were also directed to comply with certain costs orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed; 2. Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004 are set aside; 3. No order as to the costs of the rehearing of the appeal or, subject to paragraph [89] of these reasons, as to the costs of the first hearing; 4. The parties are to comply with the directions contained in paragraphs [84], [85] and [89] of these reasons

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:	LLoyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committe (No 3) (GD) [2006] NSWADTAP 21 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the decision for a list of the amendments.
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Ronald George Lloyd RESPONDENT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
FILE NUMBER:	059082
HEARING DATES:	4/04/2006
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/04/2006
DATE OF DECISION:	05/16/2006
BEFORE:	Chesterman M - ADCJ (Deputy President); Goode P - Judicial Member; Carter T - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	penalty
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	40004, 40005 and 40015 of 1998
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	09/22/2004
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED:	Burton v Anderson, Unreported, Court of Appeal, NSW, CA 40030/92, 28 October 1994 Gelderman v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 27 Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456 Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 2 Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (No 2) (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 15 Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 (‘Chisel’), 2 (‘Gypsy’) and 3 (‘Remus’)) [2004] NSWADT 208
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT B Green, solicitor RESPONDENT M Wade, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is allowed; 2. Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004 are set aside; 3. No order as to the costs of the rehearing of the appeal or, subject to paragraph [89] of these reasons, as to the costs of the first hearing; 4. The parties are to comply with the directions contained in paragraphs [84], [85] and [89] of these reasons