Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Post

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Post [2005] NSWADT 111
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES: APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Dr Alan Post
FILE NUMBER: 043264
HEARING DATES: 15/11/2004-17/11/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/18/2005
DATE OF DECISION:
05/20/2005
BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Crisp T - Non Judicial Member; Clark F - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION: Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - misconduct in a professional respect - Veterinary surgeon - misconduct in a professional respect
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 1995
CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Ex parte Tziniolis Re Medical Practitioners Act (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 448
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Howe [2002] NSWADT 191
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Wade, solicitor
RESPONDENT
M Allars, counsel
ORDERS: The complaints against Dr Post are not proved.

Introduction

1 Dr Post is a veterinary surgeon who used to practise in Glen Innes. He has a strong interest in horses and his de facto partner, Ms Judy Burton, has competed in numerous endurance riding events. The Annetts family and the Parnell family also live in Glen Innes. Both families had an extremely high regard for Dr Post, professionally and personally, and socialised with him especially at horse riding events. Their daughters, Jennifer Annetts and Tami Parnell went to the property on which Dr Post and Ms Burton lived, three or four times a week and rode horses which Dr Post and Ms Burton were looking after for the owner, Ms Sue Hicks.

2 On 7 and 8 June 2003 the annual Tom Quilty Endurance Ride of 160 kilometres was held in Canowindra. The Annetts family, the Parnell family, Dr Post and Ms Burton took five horses to the event and they all camped together at the show grounds. Judy Burton, Tami Parnell and Jennifer Annetts competed in the ride, which began at midnight on the Saturday morning. Jennifer Annetts, who was 17 years old at the time, rode “Pharaoh” and was successful in winning the lightweight division of the ride. She finished the race sometime late on Saturday afternoon. The following morning at about 9 am, she competed in and won the Fittest Horse Competition. That competition is held to determine which horse in each division completed the ride in the soundest condition.

3 After the completion of the Fittest Horse Competition Jeffrey Bonham, the Drug Testing Steward approached Jenny Annetts and told her that Pharaoh would be required to have a drug test. The test was performed at about 12.10 pm and Pharaoh tested positive to phenylbutazone. Dr Post says that he administered phenylbutazone to Pharaoh when treating the horse for a cut on his front left leg at about 11.30 am on Sunday morning 8th June 2003. He says that he thought the horse had already been drug tested at that time. Dr McKay (Jennifer Annett’s mother) and Mrs Parnell, both say that Ms Burton had a conversation with each of them separately before Dr Post…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Post 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
[2005] NSWADT 111
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee versus Dr Post was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee brought the complaints against Dr Post, a registered veterinary surgeon, in relation to his professional conduct. The nature of the dispute centred on allegations of professional misconduct, including inappropriate prescribing practices and unprofessional conduct. The Investigating Committee sought to have Dr Post's registration as a veterinary surgeon cancelled or suspended.

The court was required to determine whether the allegations of professional misconduct were substantiated and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Dr Post. Key issues included whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the alleged misconduct, and whether any misconduct, if proven, warranted disciplinary action.

The court found that the Investigating Committee had not proved the complaints against Dr Post. The committee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the alleged inappropriate prescribing practices and unprofessional conduct. The court emphasised the high standard of proof required for disciplinary actions against registered professionals. Consequently, the court concluded that the complaints were not proved, and no disciplinary action was warranted against Dr Post.

Orders

Orders of the court

The complaints against Dr Post are not proved.

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.