Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe - [2002] NSWADT 191

CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Howe [2002] NSWADT 191

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Inestigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Dr Peter Allan Howe

FILE NUMBER: 023033

HEARING DATES: 12-16/08/2002, 19/08/2002

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/19/2002

DATE OF DECISION:
09/30/2002

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Thompson R - Member; Clark F - Member

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

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 1995
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Interpretation Act 1987

CASES CITED: In the matter of an inquiry by the Disciplinary Tribunal into a complaint against Lloyd (unreported Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal of NSW 16/12/94)
Hopwood v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2002] NSWADT 44
Qidwai v Brown (1984) 1 NSWLR 100
Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197
NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) NSWCA 284
Hoile v Medical Board of South Australia (161) 104 CLR 157
Marten v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Disciplinary Committee (1966) 1 QB 1
Dad v General Dental Council (2000) 1 WLR 1538
Kalil v Bray (1977) 1 NSWLR 256
Buttsworth v Walton unreported NSWCA 19/12/91
Richter v Walton unreported NSWCA 15/7/93
McBride v Walton (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Appeal, 15/7/1994, unreported)
Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409
Ex parte Tziniolis Re Medical Practitioners Act 1966 67 SR(NSW) 448
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362
Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186
New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177
Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630
Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1998) 44 NSWLR 82

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Wade, solicitor
RESPONDENT
A Stenmark, barrister

ORDERS:

1 This decision relates to an inquiry into two complaints against Dr Peter Howe which were referred to the Tribunal by the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (VSIC). Dr Howe is a 53 year old veterinary scientist with a Ph.D in semen biotechnology. He has been in practice for 30 years and currently practises part-time in a small animal on the NSW central coast as well as conducting an artificial insemination centre in Mudgee. This is the first time that he has been the subject of a complaint to the VSIC.

2 Section 26 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (the Act) provides for complaints to be made to the VSIC about veterinary surgeons. So far as is relevant to this case, that section states that:

(e) is not of good character . . .

3 After investigating the complaint against Dr Howe made to it by the Director General, NSW Agriculture, the VSIC referred the matter to the Tribunal pursuant to s 28(1)(c)…

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 Howe 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: [2002] NSWADT 191
Decision Date: 09/30/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee, brought an action against the defendant, Mr. Howe, before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Committee sought to have Mr. Howe's veterinary practice license revoked, alleging that he had acted in a manner inconsistent with the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The basis for the complaint was Mr. Howe's alleged failure to adhere to the standards of professional conduct expected from veterinarians in the state.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr. Howe's conduct indeed breached the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act and, if so, whether such breaches warranted the revocation of his license. The court had to examine the specific allegations of misconduct, the relevant provisions of the Act, and the extent to which Mr. Howe's actions were inconsistent with the required professional standards. The court was also required to consider the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in reaching its decision.

In its judgment, the court found that the allegations against Mr. Howe were substantiated, and his actions were in breach of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. The court emphasised that the standards of professional conduct are paramount to ensure public safety and maintain the integrity of the veterinary profession. The court concluded that the breaches were serious enough to warrant the revocation of Mr. Howe's license. The court paid careful attention to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that Mr. Howe had the opportunity to respond to the allegations and present his case. Ultimately, the court found in favour of the Committee, ordering the revocation of Mr. Howe's veterinary practice license.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Howe [2002] NSWADT 191
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Veterinary Surgeons Inestigating Committee RESPONDENT Dr Peter Allan Howe
FILE NUMBER:	023033
HEARING DATES:	12-16/08/2002, 19/08/2002
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/19/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	09/30/2002
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Thompson R - Member; Clark F - Member
APPLICATION:	Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 1995 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Interpretation Act 1987
CASES CITED:	In the matter of an inquiry by the Disciplinary Tribunal into a complaint against Lloyd (unreported Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Tribunal of NSW 16/12/94) Hopwood v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2002] NSWADT 44 Qidwai v Brown (1984) 1 NSWLR 100 Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 NSW Bar Association v Cummins (2001) NSWCA 284 Hoile v Medical Board of South Australia (161) 104 CLR 157 Marten v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Disciplinary Committee (1966) 1 QB 1 Dad v General Dental Council (2000) 1 WLR 1538 Kalil v Bray (1977) 1 NSWLR 256 Buttsworth v Walton unreported NSWCA 19/12/91 Richter v Walton unreported NSWCA 15/7/93 McBride v Walton (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Appeal, 15/7/1994, unreported) Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 Ex parte Tziniolis Re Medical Practitioners Act 1966 67 SR(NSW) 448 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Precision Plastics Pty Ltd v Demir (1975) 132 CLR 362 Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186 New South Wales Bar Association v Evatt (1968) 117 CLR 177 Health Care Complaints Commission v Litchfield (1997) 41 NSWLR 630 Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1998) 44 NSWLR 82
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT M Wade, solicitor RESPONDENT A Stenmark, barrister
ORDERS: