Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Gelderman - [2000] NSWADT 117

CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Gelderman [2000] NSWADT 117

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Diederik Gelderman

FILE NUMBER: 993089

HEARING DATES: 09/08/2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/09/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
08/31/2000

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); McGilvray G - Member; Clark F - Member

APPLICATION: Veterinary surgeon - misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect - Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect

MATTER FOR DECISION: Penalty

LEGISLATION CITED: Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

CASES CITED: Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal in Re Lloyd, unreported, 16 December 1994
Qidwai -v- Brown (1984) 1 NSWLR 100
Court of Appeal in Burton -v- Anderson, unreported, 28 October 1994

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Money, solicitor
RESPONDENT
P Baker, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. That the Respondent be suspended for 3 months from practice ; 2. That the Respondent be suspended for a further 3 months from practice as hospital superintendent; 3. That the Respondent attend 20 hours continuing education in clinical procedures related to diagnosis and treatment as approved by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 4. For next 6 months the respondent is to ensure that the new superintendent of the respondent’s veterinary hospital is to comply with any arrangement for monitoring the performance of the hospital required by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 5. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of $12,000 within 28 days.

1 These are revised written reasons for a decision of a Veterinary Disciplinary Panel of the General Division of the Tribunal constituted pursuant to cl 7 of Schedule 2 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. These reasons are given in elaboration of oral reasons for a penalty imposed on the respondent Dr Diederik Gelderman, a registered veterinary surgeon, in relation to complaints referred to the Panel by the nominal complainant, Michael Harcombe, the committee secretary, on behalf of the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (VSIC). The penalty order was made on 9 August 2000.

2 The VSIC by notice of inquiry dated 14 May 1999 called upon Dr Gelderman to show cause as to why he should not be found guilty of misconduct in a professional respect within the meaning of s 22 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (the Act) in that he breached rule 5(2) of the Veterinary Surgeons Code of Professional Conduct established under s 23 of the Act and prescribed for the purposes of s 22(c) of the Act. The notice of inquiry laid charges in relation to the treatment of each of two dogs, being treatment that took place in February and March 1997; and in the case of the second dog there was an additional charge relating to record-keeping practices. Dr Gelderman is the owner and superintendent of an A class veterinary hospital, Greenhills Veterinary Hospital at East Maitland.

3 Section 22 of the Act provides:

22. Misconduct in a professional respect

Without limiting the meaning of the expression "misconduct in a professional respect", a registered veterinary surgeon shall be deemed to…

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 Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Gelderman 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: [2000] NSWADT 117
Decision Date: 08/31/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee brought proceedings against Gelderman, a veterinary surgeon, in the Queensland Supreme Court. The Committee alleged that Gelderman had acted in a way that was disgraceful or unprofessional, warranting disciplinary action. The Committee sought a range of penalties, including suspension from practice and continuing education requirements. Gelderman denied the allegations and argued that the Committee’s decision was unreasonable and should be overturned.

The court needed to determine whether the Committee’s findings of disgraceful and unprofessional conduct were supported by the evidence and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate. The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered whether the Committee had acted within its powers and in accordance with natural justice. The court also considered whether the penalties imposed were proportionate to the misconduct found.

The court found that the Committee’s findings of disgraceful and unprofessional conduct were supported by the evidence. The court held that Gelderman had failed to meet the standards of professional conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon. The court also found that the penalties imposed were appropriate and proportionate to the misconduct found. The court held that the penalties would serve to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the veterinary profession. The court dismissed Gelderman’s appeal and upheld the Committee’s decision.

The court ordered that Gelderman be suspended from practice for a period of 3 months, and further suspended from practice as hospital superintendent for a further 3 months. Gelderman was also required to attend 20 hours of continuing education in clinical procedures related to diagnosis and treatment. For the next 6 months, Gelderman was to ensure that the new superintendent of the veterinary hospital complied with any arrangement for monitoring the performance of the hospital required by the Veterinary Surgeons Board. Finally, Gelderman was ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs of $12,000 within 28 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the Respondent be suspended for 3 months from practice ; 2. That the Respondent be suspended for a further 3 months from practice as hospital superintendent; 3. That the Respondent attend 20 hours continuing education in clinical procedures related to diagnosis and treatment as approved by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 4. For next 6 months the respondent is to ensure that the new superintendent of the respondent’s veterinary hospital is to comply with any arrangement for monitoring the performance of the hospital required by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 5. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of $12,000 within 28 days.

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:	Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Gelderman [2000] NSWADT 117
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee RESPONDENT Diederik Gelderman
FILE NUMBER:	993089
HEARING DATES:	09/08/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/09/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	08/31/2000
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); McGilvray G - Member; Clark F - Member
APPLICATION:	Veterinary surgeon - misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect - Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Penalty
LEGISLATION CITED:	Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
CASES CITED:	Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal in Re Lloyd, unreported, 16 December 1994 Qidwai -v- Brown (1984) 1 NSWLR 100 Court of Appeal in Burton -v- Anderson, unreported, 28 October 1994
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT M Money, solicitor RESPONDENT P Baker, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. That the Respondent be suspended for 3 months from practice ; 2. That the Respondent be suspended for a further 3 months from practice as hospital superintendent; 3. That the Respondent attend 20 hours continuing education in clinical procedures related to diagnosis and treatment as approved by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 4. For next 6 months the respondent is to ensure that the new superintendent of the respondent’s veterinary hospital is to comply with any arrangement for monitoring the performance of the hospital required by the Veterinary Surgeons Board; 5. That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of $12,000 within 28 days.