SOEMARTOPO - [2010] WASAT 172

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

STREAM: VOCATIONAL REGULATION

ACT: VETERINARY SURGEONS ACT 1960 (WA)

CITATION: SOEMARTOPO [2010] WASAT 172

MEMBER: JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)
MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER)
DR A VIGANO (SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER)

HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS

DELIVERED : 25 NOVEMBER 2010

FILE NO/S: VR 211 of 2010

BETWEEN: SUDJAR WAHJUDI SOEMARTOPO
Applicant

Catchwords:

Professions - Veterinary surgeon - Application for leave to apply for restoration of name to Register - Criteria for the grant of leave

Legislation:

Poisons Act 1964 (WA)
Poisons Regulations 1965 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 11(3)
Veterinary Regulations 1979 (WA)
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1960 (WA), s 24(4), s 24(4)(a)

Result:

Leave granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors:

Applicant: Self-represented

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Dr Sudjar Wahjudi Soemartopo applied for leave of the Tribunal to apply to the Veterinary Surgeons' Board of Western Australia for restoration of his name to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. Dr Soemartopo's name had been removed from the Register as a result of consent orders made in the Tribunal in September 2007.
The Tribunal noted the nature of the conduct which led to Dr Soemartopo's deregistration, the steps taken by him to address the underlying issues leading to his deregistration, and the time since deregistration. The Tribunal concluded that it was appropriate for the Board to consider whether the matters raised by Dr Soemartopo would justify restoration of his name to the Register, and accordingly granted leave for him to make that application.

Introduction

During 2007, the Veterinary Surgeons' Board of Western Australia (the Board) brought proceedings in the Tribunal against Dr Sudjar Wahjudi Soemartopo for unprofessional conduct as a veterinary surgeon in various respects. The proceedings were resolved by agreement between the Board and Dr Soemartopo following mediation in the Tribunal in September 2007. Dr Soemartopo acknowledged that he was guilty of the conduct alleged, which comprised the prescription and dispensing of Schedule 4 Poisons without making adequate clinical records in breach of various regulations under the Veterinary Regulations 1979 (WA) and certain provisions of the Poisons Act 1964 (WA) and the Poisons Regulations 1965 (WA). The outcome agreed by the parties to those proceedings, and accepted by the Tribunal, was that Dr Soemartopo's name be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and that he pay the Board's costs.
Dr Soemartopo now seeks to have his name restored to the Register. Section 24(4) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1960 (WA) (VS Act) enables a person whose name has been removed from the register to apply to the Board for restoration of their name. Section 24(4)(a) provides, however, that an application under subsection (4) cannot be made without first applying for and obtaining the leave of the State Administrative Tribunal where the person's name was removed as a result of a proceeding before the Tribunal. Thus it is necessary for Dr Soemartopo to have the Tribunal's leave to make…

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 SOEMARTOPO 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: [2010] WASAT 172
Decision Date: 25 NOVEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved SOEMARTOPO, a veterinary surgeon, who sought leave to apply for the restoration of their name to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. The application was made following their removal from the register due to professional misconduct. The matter was heard in a relevant state court. The central legal issues revolved around the criteria for granting leave to apply for the restoration of a veterinary surgeon's name to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and whether it was in the public interest to restore their registration.

The court considered the criteria set out in the relevant legislation and case law. It examined the applicant's history of professional misconduct, their efforts to rehabilitate, and the potential impact of restoration on the public interest. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the veterinary profession and ensuring that those who register to practice meet the required standards of competence and conduct. The court also highlighted the need for a balance between the interests of the practitioner and the protection of the public. Ultimately, the court found that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated the necessary rehabilitation and that it was not in the public interest to restore their registration. Therefore, the application for leave was dismissed.

Orders