CITATION: LLOYD v VETERINARY SURGEONS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE & ANOR [1999] NSWCA 68 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40196/99 HEARING DATE(S): 19 and 22 March 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
25 March 1999PARTIES :
Ronald George Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee and TCN Channel 9JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Priestley JA at 2; Stein JA at 27
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Administrative Decisions Tribunal LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 40004/98 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Connor J
COUNSEL: Claimant - D. Inverarity
Opponent 1 (VSIC) - S.J. Burchett
Opponent 2 (TCN 9) - T.D. BlackburnSOLICITORS: Claimant - Hermann & Green
Opponent 1 - Conway MacCallum
Opponent 2 - Gilbert & TobinCATCHWORDS: See note re section 126 of the Administrative Tribunals Act re non publication of any identifying matter; Application for relief in the nature of prerogative relief; Supreme Court Act s 69; Availability of appellate review in Tribunal below; Case not appropriate for consideration by Supreme Court until after appellate procedure below followed out. ACTS CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Supreme Court Act 1970
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986DECISION: Summons dismissed with costs
1 MASON P: I agree with Priestley JA.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40196/99
ADT 40004/98MASON P
PRIESTLEY JA
STEIN JAThursday, 25 March 1999
WARNING : Section 126 of the Administrative Tribunals Act may apply to this case. Its terms are summarised in par 4 of the court’s reasons.
LLOYD v VETERINARY SURGEONS INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE & ANOR
2 PRIESTLEY JA: The Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act) established the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal). The court was told that the Tribunal began to exercise its powers and functions on 1 January 1999.
3 On Monday, 15 March 1999 the General Division of the Tribunal began the hearing of proceedings entitled The Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Dr R.G. Lloyd. The proceedings were listed by that name in the list outside the hearing room at the St James Centre, 111 Elizabeth Street, and in the Sydney Morning Herald. After beginning on the Monday the hearing of the proceedings went forward on the following Tuesday and Wednesday and was continuing on Thursday, 18 March 1999.
4 By virtue of s 75 of the ADT Act, the hearing of the proceedings was to be open to the public unless the Tribunal decided otherwise, which it did not do. Although the hearing was thus open to the public, s 126 of the ADT Act provides that a person must not, except with the consent of the Tribunal, publish or broadcast the name of any person, amongst others, to whom any proceedings before the Tribunal relate, whether before or after the proceedings are disposed of. Section 126(3) provides that a reference to the name of a person includes a reference to any information, picture or other material that identifies the person or is likely to lead to the identification of the person.
5 On Thursday, 18 March 1999, TCN Channel Nine…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 68
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal, heard an application for prerogative relief brought by the applicant, Lloyd, against the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed, but it concerned an issue that had been before the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court should entertain an application for prerogative relief at that stage, given the existence of an available appellate procedure within the Tribunal system. Specifically, the Court considered the availability of appellate review in the Tribunal below and whether the applicant had exhausted or should be required to exhaust that avenue before seeking intervention from the Supreme Court.
The Court reasoned that it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to consider the matter until the applicant had followed the prescribed appellate procedure within the Tribunal system. This principle reflects the general approach of courts to defer to specialist tribunal review mechanisms where they exist and are available. The Court applied the principle that prerogative relief is typically a remedy of last resort, and parties are generally expected to exhaust statutory review rights before approaching the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the summons was dismissed with costs.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court should entertain an application for prerogative relief at that stage, given the existence of an available appellate procedure within the Tribunal system. Specifically, the Court considered the availability of appellate review in the Tribunal below and whether the applicant had exhausted or should be required to exhaust that avenue before seeking intervention from the Supreme Court.
The Court reasoned that it was not appropriate for the Supreme Court to consider the matter until the applicant had followed the prescribed appellate procedure within the Tribunal system. This principle reflects the general approach of courts to defer to specialist tribunal review mechanisms where they exist and are available. The Court applied the principle that prerogative relief is typically a remedy of last resort, and parties are generally expected to exhaust statutory review rights before approaching the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the summons was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons dismissed with costs
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.