Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Lloyd - [2000] NSWADT 98

Set aside by Appeal: Set aside by appeal on 16/7/02 (CA)

CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Lloyd [2000] NSWADT 98

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Ronald George Lloyd

FILE NUMBER: 40004, 40005, 40015, 40016 of 1998

HEARING DATES: 21/07/2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 07/26/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
07/27/2000

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President)

APPLICATION: Reconstitution of Tribunal during hearing

MATTER FOR DECISION: Procedure for Reconsideration of Proceedings before Veterinary Surgeons Panel constituted pursuant to s 79(3) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997

CASES CITED: General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627
Wentworth v Rogers (1986) 6 NSWLR 642
Coleshill v Manchester Corporation [1928] 1 KB 776
Brennan v Brennan (1953) 89 CLR 129
Chua Chee Chor [1962] 1 WLR 1464
Seables Pty Ltd v Smith (1997) 6 Tas R 350
Coalcliff Collieries Ltd v Campbell (1964) 38 ALJR 180
Boston Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Margaronis (1992) 27 NSWLR 580
The Hopemount (1943)75 Ll.L.R. 94
The Forest Lake [1966] P 268

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
S Burchett, barrister
RESPONDENT
D Inverarity, barrister

ORDERS: Directions 1. The new Panel to proceed by having regard to the record of proceedings (including exhibits) relating to the hearing of the first, second and third notices of inquiry by the Veterinary Disciplinary Panel as previously constituted; 2. That the record referred to in direction 1 be referred to the new Member ; 3. The parties be invited to make oral submissions on any request to the President by the new Member for the recall of witnesses, either for the purpose of hearing part or all of their evidence afresh or for the purpose of seeking clarification by way of questions; and further directions be made by the President.

1 On 15 March 1999 a three member Veterinary Disciplinary Panel of the General Division of the Tribunal commenced hearing charges contained in four notices of inquiry issued by the Secretary to the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee pursuant to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986. The respondent to the notices and to the proceedings is Dr Ronald George Lloyd, a registered veterinary surgeon. The notices allege professional misconduct or other breaches of professional standards arising out of the provision of treatment by Dr Lloyd to four animals, each belonging to different people. That Panel was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the Tribunal Act), Schedule 2 cl 7.

2 The Panel comprised the President of the Tribunal, as the presiding judicial member, Dr Garth McGilvray, a non-judicial member who is required also to be a member of the Veterinary Surgeons Board and Ms Yolande Dubow, a non-judicial member assigned to the General Division by the Minister to represent the interests of users of veterinary services.

3 On 13 March 2000 Ms Dubow’s appointment expired while the proceedings remained uncompleted. At the time of the expiry of the appointment the Panel had completed hearing evidence in relation 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- Lloyd 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 98
Decision Date: 07/27/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee versus Lloyd came before the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of New South Wales. The dispute arose from the Committee's decision to discipline Lloyd, a registered veterinary surgeon, following a series of notices of inquiry. Lloyd contested the Committee's findings and sought judicial review of the decision-making process. The court was tasked with determining whether there were any errors in the procedural fairness or the substantive decision-making by the Committee.

The legal issues centred on whether the Committee had correctly exercised its statutory powers under the Veterinary Surgeons Act and whether the process adhered to the principles of natural justice, particularly in relation to the procedural fairness afforded to Lloyd. The court needed to assess the Committee's compliance with the statutory framework and whether the process was free from bias or procedural error. The court also considered whether Lloyd's right to a fair hearing was compromised by any deficiencies in the process.

The court found that the Committee had acted within its statutory powers but identified significant procedural flaws in the process. The Committee had failed to provide Lloyd with adequate notice of the allegations and had not ensured that he had an opportunity to adequately respond. The court held that these procedural deficiencies amounted to a failure to observe the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the Committee's decision and directed that a new Panel be constituted to review the matter, taking into account the existing record of proceedings. The new Panel was instructed to consider the evidence and findings from the previous inquiries, and to ensure that Lloyd had a fair opportunity to present his case. The court further invited the parties to make submissions regarding the recall of witnesses and other procedural matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Directions 1. The new Panel to proceed by having regard to the record of proceedings (including exhibits) relating to the hearing of the first, second and third notices of inquiry by the Veterinary Disciplinary Panel as previously constituted; 2. That the record referred to in direction 1 be referred to the new Member ; 3. The parties be invited to make oral submissions on any request to the President by the new Member for the recall of witnesses, either for the purpose of hearing part or all of their evidence afresh or for the purpose of seeking clarification by way of questions; and further directions be made by the President.

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- Lloyd [2000] NSWADT 98
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee RESPONDENT Ronald George Lloyd
FILE NUMBER:	40004, 40005, 40015, 40016 of 1998
HEARING DATES:	21/07/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	07/26/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	07/27/2000
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
APPLICATION:	Reconstitution of Tribunal during hearing
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Procedure for Reconsideration of Proceedings before Veterinary Surgeons Panel constituted pursuant to s 79(3) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
CASES CITED:	General Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627 Wentworth v Rogers (1986) 6 NSWLR 642 Coleshill v Manchester Corporation [1928] 1 KB 776 Brennan v Brennan (1953) 89 CLR 129 Chua Chee Chor [1962] 1 WLR 1464 Seables Pty Ltd v Smith (1997) 6 Tas R 350 Coalcliff Collieries Ltd v Campbell (1964) 38 ALJR 180 Boston Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Margaronis (1992) 27 NSWLR 580 The Hopemount (1943)75 Ll.L.R. 94 The Forest Lake [1966] P 268
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT S Burchett, barrister RESPONDENT D Inverarity, barrister
ORDERS:	Directions 1. The new Panel to proceed by having regard to the record of proceedings (including exhibits) relating to the hearing of the first, second and third notices of inquiry by the Veterinary Disciplinary Panel as previously constituted; 2. That the record referred to in direction 1 be referred to the new Member ; 3. The parties be invited to make oral submissions on any request to the President by the new Member for the recall of witnesses, either for the purpose of hearing part or all of their evidence afresh or for the purpose of seeking clarification by way of questions; and further directions be made by the President.