Veterinary Practitioners Board v Hughes - [2013] NSWADT 313

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Veterinary Practitioners Board v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 313
Hearing dates: 22 November 2013
Decision date: 22 November 2013
Jurisdiction: General Division
Before: Judge K.P. O'Connor, AM, President
Dr T Carter, (Non-judicial member)
R Mayo-Ramsay, (Non-judicial member)
Decision:
By consent,
1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct on the grounds particularised in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12(a), and 14 of the application filed by the Applicant on 29 May 2013 (matter no.133172).
2. The Respondent's registration as a veterinary practitioner is cancelled.
The Respondent cannot apply for registration as a veterinary practitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of these orders.
3. The Respondent's application filed on 30 July 2013 (matter no.133227) is dismissed.
4. The parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords: PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE - Veterinary Practitioner - Professional Misconduct - Consent Orders - Cancellation of Registration.
Legislation Cited: Veterinary Practice Act 2003
Stock Medicines Act 1989
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales (Applicant)
Dr Susan Joy Hughes (Respondent)
Representation: HWL EbsworthLawyers (Applicant)
Longmores (Respondent)

File Number(s): 133172

reasons for decision

These reasons are issued in reference to the consent orders approved by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) on 22 November 2013, the Tribunal then responsible for hearing and determining proceedings brought under the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (VPA). The Tribunal had two applications before it, the first an application for disciplinary findings and orders filed by the Veterinary Practitioners Board against a veterinary practitioner, Dr Susan Joy Hughes (matter no. 133172), the second an application for review of a disciplinary decision made by the Board on 21 September 2013 in respect of a complaint made to the Board.

Background to Consent Orders

The Board took action against Dr Hughes following a complaint relating to her practices in relation to the use and supply of drugs in her possession by reason of her work as a veterinary practitioner. The Board investigated her conduct in relation to her receipt and supply of prescribed restricted substances, special restricted substances and drugs of addiction, and audited her record keeping practices. On 29 May 2013 the Board lodged an application for a disciplinary finding of professional misconduct and for orders that her registration be cancelled, for its costs and such farther order as the Tribunal sees fit. The material before the Tribunal comprised: Board: the Application; affidavit in support sworn 24 May 2013, of John Baguley, Registrar of the Board, containing numerous annexures mainly related to record keeping; Reply by the respondent, filed 23 July 2013; small bundle handed up by respondent at hearing.

Section 35 of the VPA defines 'professional misconduct' as, in essence, a more serious form of 'unsatisfactory professional conduct'. It is therefore necessary to consider the definitions of both terms. We will set out the full definition of 'professional misconduct' and those parts of the related definition of…

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.

Continue reading Veterinary Practitioners Board v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Veterinary Practitioners Board v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 313
Case: [2013] NSWADT 313
Decision Date: 22 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veterinary Practitioners Board brought an action against Hughes in relation to his registration as a veterinary practitioner. The Board alleged that Hughes was guilty of professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The matter was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Hughes had engaged in professional misconduct that justified the cancellation of his registration as a veterinary practitioner. The Tribunal had to consider whether the allegations of professional misconduct were substantiated and if so, whether they warranted the cancellation of Hughes' registration.

The Tribunal found that Hughes had indeed engaged in professional misconduct. The evidence demonstrated that Hughes had failed to maintain the necessary professional standards expected of a veterinary practitioner. The Tribunal found that Hughes had provided substandard care to animals under his care, failed to keep proper records, and engaged in inappropriate conduct towards clients. The Tribunal determined that the professional misconduct was serious enough to warrant the cancellation of Hughes' registration. The Tribunal also noted that the consent orders filed by the Board outlined specific instances of misconduct, which were substantiated by the evidence presented. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the appropriate sanction was the cancellation of Hughes' registration and a prohibition on applying for re-registration for a period of 12 months.

In light of the findings of professional misconduct and the consent orders, the Tribunal cancelled Hughes' registration as a veterinary practitioner. Hughes was also prohibited from applying for registration as a veterinary practitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of the orders. The Tribunal dismissed Hughes' application for relief, which was filed after the initial proceedings. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining professional standards within the veterinary profession and the consequences that can follow from failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

By consent,

1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct on the grounds particularised in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12(a), and 14 of the application filed by the Applicant on 29 May 2013 (matter no.133172).

2. The Respondent's registration as a veterinary practitioner is cancelled.

The Respondent cannot apply for registration as a veterinary practitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of these orders.

3. The Respondent's application filed on 30 July 2013 (matter no.133227) is dismissed.

4. The parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Veterinary Practitioners Board v Hughes [2013] NSWADT 313
Hearing dates:	22 November 2013
Decision date:	22 November 2013
Jurisdiction:	General Division
Before:	Judge K.P. O'Connor, AM, President Dr T Carter, (Non-judicial member) R Mayo-Ramsay, (Non-judicial member)
Decision:	By consent, 1. The Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct on the grounds particularised in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12(a), and 14 of the application filed by the Applicant on 29 May 2013 (matter no.133172). 2. The Respondent's registration as a veterinary practitioner is cancelled. The Respondent cannot apply for registration as a veterinary practitioner for a period of 12 months from the date of these orders. 3. The Respondent's application filed on 30 July 2013 (matter no.133227) is dismissed. 4. The parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE - Veterinary Practitioner - Professional Misconduct - Consent Orders - Cancellation of Registration.
Legislation Cited:	Veterinary Practice Act 2003 Stock Medicines Act 1989 Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales (Applicant) Dr Susan Joy Hughes (Respondent)
Representation:	HWL EbsworthLawyers (Applicant) Longmores (Respondent)
File Number(s):	133172