CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Post [2005] NSWADT 111 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Dr Alan PostFILE NUMBER: 043264 HEARING DATES: 15/11/2004-17/11/2004 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 02/18/2005 DATE OF DECISION:
05/20/2005BEFORE: 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 1995CASES 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 191REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Wade, solicitor
RESPONDENT
M Allars, counselORDERS: 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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] NSWADT 111
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.