Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth

Case [2025] QCATA 43

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth [2025] QCATA 43

PARTIES:

VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD OF QUEENSLAND

(applicant)

v

EDWARD CHARLES BUTTERWORTH

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL367-22

MATTER TYPE:

Other civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

  28 April 2025

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2025 and further written submissions to 23 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney KC

ORDERS:

1.   Upon the undertakings given by the respondent to this Tribunal that he will abide by a specified condition for a period of 5 years from 9 November 2022, that is until 8 November 2027, the specified condition being that;

(a)   he is prohibited from employing or contracting females to work for him in his veterinary practice;

(b)  he is prohibited from providing work experience or placement opportunities or the like to any females in his veterinary practice;

(c)   with the proviso that the above prohibitions do not apply to the Respondent's own wife and children or to any female bookkeeper or administrative assistant who solely works on a remote basis and is never in the same physical location as the Respondent.

2.   The appeal in respect of ground 1 is allowed.

3.   Leave to appeal on grounds 2 and 3 are refused and the appeal is otherwise disallowed.

4.   Within 7 days of the making of these orders the parties shall file any submissions they seek to rely on in relation to the costs of the appeal should they not resolve the issue as between them.

5.   I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – VETERINARY SURGEONS – MISCONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE – APPEALS – Veterinary Surgeons – where registrant was alleged to have engaged in misconduct in a professional respect – where the allegations were admitted – where undertakings were given by the registrant about his future practice – what is the appropriate penalty on the basis of the undertakings – whether this is the appropriate penalty  – whether after significant delay of 5 years since the registrant ceased to practice as a veterinary surgeon and 10 years since the commission of sexual offences in respect of which the registrant was imprisoned there is any purpose in removing him from the register  – error of law by Tribunal in purporting to impose conditions on the respondent's registration

COSTS – test to be applied when exercising the jurisdiction to make a costs order in disciplinary hearings where the Tribunal is to make a decision about costs it considers appropriate in the circumstances of the particular proceedings – scope of discretionary considerations

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9(2)(a), s 10(1)(b), s 100, s 102, s 142, s 146
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld), s 15A, s 15C, s 15D, s 22F, s 22E, s 150

Arnold Electrical & Data Installations Pty Ltd v Logan Area Group…

Continue reading Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth [2025] QCATA 43
Case
[2025] QCATA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland appealed a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) against a veterinary surgeon, Mr Butterworth, who had admitted to serious misconduct. The dispute centred on the appropriate penalty for Mr Butterworth's conduct and whether his removal from the register was justified given the significant delay in proceedings and the time elapsed since he ceased practice. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal in Queensland.

The court had to decide whether the penalty imposed by QCAT was appropriate, and if the Tribunal had erred in imposing conditions on Mr Butterworth's registration. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate test for costs in disciplinary hearings, considering the discretionary factors involved. The appeal was partially allowed, with the court ruling that QCAT had erred in imposing certain conditions on Mr Butterworth's registration. However, the appeal was otherwise disallowed, and leave to appeal on two other grounds was refused.

The court found that given the significant delay in the proceedings and the time since Mr Butterworth had ceased to practice, there was little purpose in removing him from the register. However, the court imposed specific conditions on Mr Butterworth's future practice to protect females in the workplace. The court also clarified the scope of discretionary considerations when making a costs order in disciplinary hearings.

The orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal on one ground, with specific conditions imposed on Mr Butterworth's future practice. The appeal on other grounds was refused, and the court granted the parties liberty to apply for any other consequential or other orders that might be necessary. The parties were also directed to file any submissions they wished to rely on in relation to the costs of the appeal within seven days of the court's orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Upon the undertakings given by the respondent to this Tribunal that he will abide by a specified condition for a period of 5 years from 9 November 2022, that is until 8 November 2027, the specified condition being that;

(a) he is prohibited from employing or contracting females to work for him in his veterinary practice;

(b) he is prohibited from providing work experience or placement opportunities or the like to any females in his veterinary practice;

(c) with the proviso that the above prohibitions do not apply to the Respondent's own wife and children or to any female bookkeeper or administrative assistant who solely works on a remote basis and is never in the same physical location as the Respondent.

2. The appeal in respect of ground 1 is allowed.

3. Leave to appeal on grounds 2 and 3 are refused and the appeal is otherwise disallowed.

4. Within 7 days of the making of these orders the parties shall file any submissions they seek to rely on in relation to the costs of the appeal should they not resolve the issue as between them.

5. I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

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.