Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee - [2005] NSWADTAP 2

Set aside by Appeal:
Set Aside by Appeal on 21/12/2005 (Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWCA 456)

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWADTAP 2

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Ronald George Lloyd
RESPONDENT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee

FILE NUMBER: 049044

HEARING DATES: 06/12/2004

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/06/2004

DATE OF DECISION:
01/10/2005

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus')) [2004] NSWADT 208

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: Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Brandusoiu v Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8
Burton v Anderson, unreported, CA 40030/92, 28 October 1994
Gelderman v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 27
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630
House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lloyd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADTAP 3
NSW Bar Association v Evatt (1986) 117 CLR 177
Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42
Ex parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus')) [2004] NSWADT 208
Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439
Williams v Bill Williams Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 547

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
E Cohen, barrister
RESPONDENT
M Wade, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. Order 1 of the Tribunal's orders made on 22 September 2004 is varied by substituting the words '1 May 2005' for '1 January 2005'; 3. The order of the Appeal Panel made on 25 October 2004, staying the operation of Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004, is vacated; 4. In relation to the hearing of 25 October 2004 and the hearing of the appeal, each party has 28 days in which to file and serve an application for costs, with supporting submissions. Any submissions in response must be filed and served within a further 28 days. If no application is filed, there will be no order for costs.

The circumstances of this appeal

1 This is an appeal by Dr Ronald George Lloyd, a registered veterinary surgeon, against disciplinary orders made against him by a Veterinary Disciplinary Panel of the Tribunal 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).

2 The Tribunal’s power to make disciplinary orders is conferred by s 32 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (‘the VS Act’), which provides:

32 Tribunal’s powers when complaint proved

(1) If the matter of a complaint against a registered veterinary surgeon has…

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 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

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: [2005] NSWADTAP 2
Decision Date: 01/10/2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lloyd was a veterinarian who faced charges brought by the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee, leading to a disciplinary hearing. Lloyd appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Appeal Panel, which was subsequently reviewed by the court. The central issue was whether the penalty imposed by the Tribunal was excessive or otherwise invalid. The court had to assess the appropriateness of the penalty in light of the charges and the applicable laws.

The court held that the penalty was neither manifestly excessive nor otherwise invalid. The reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the circumstances of the case, the severity of the misconduct, and the principles guiding the imposition of penalties by disciplinary bodies. The court concluded that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion appropriately and that there were no grounds to interfere with the penalty imposed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's orders were varied to reflect the correct effective date of the penalty. The stay of the Tribunal's orders was vacated, meaning they would now take effect as originally intended. The court also set out a procedure for the parties to apply for costs if they wished to do so, with specific timelines provided.

The final orders included the dismissal of the appeal, a variation of the Tribunal's orders to correct the effective date of the penalty, the vacating of the Appeal Panel's stay order, and the provision for a potential costs application by either party within a specified timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. Order 1 of the Tribunal's orders made on 22 September 2004 is varied by substituting the words '1 May 2005' for '1 January 2005'; 3. The order of the Appeal Panel made on 25 October 2004, staying the operation of Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004, is vacated; 4. In relation to the hearing of 25 October 2004 and the hearing of the appeal, each party has 28 days in which to file and serve an application for costs, with supporting submissions. Any submissions in response must be filed and served within a further 28 days. If no application is filed, there will be no order for 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.

CITATION:	Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2005] NSWADTAP 2
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Ronald George Lloyd RESPONDENT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
FILE NUMBER:	049044
HEARING DATES:	06/12/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/06/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	01/10/2005
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus')) [2004] NSWADT 208
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:	Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Brandusoiu v Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8 Burton v Anderson, unreported, CA 40030/92, 28 October 1994 Gelderman v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 27 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lloyd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADTAP 3 NSW Bar Association v Evatt (1986) 117 CLR 177 Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42 Ex parte Tziniolis; Re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448 Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Disciplinary Order: Inquiries 1 ('Chisel'), 2 ('Gypsy') and 3 ('Remus')) [2004] NSWADT 208 Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439 Williams v Bill Williams Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 547
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT E Cohen, barrister RESPONDENT M Wade, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed; 2. Order 1 of the Tribunal's orders made on 22 September 2004 is varied by substituting the words '1 May 2005' for '1 January 2005'; 3. The order of the Appeal Panel made on 25 October 2004, staying the operation of Orders 1 and 2 of the Tribunal made on 22 September 2004, is vacated; 4. In relation to the hearing of 25 October 2004 and the hearing of the appeal, each party has 28 days in which to file and serve an application for costs, with supporting submissions. Any submissions in response must be filed and served within a further 28 days. If no application is filed, there will be no order for costs.