CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson [2007] NSWADT 107 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Andrew ThompsonFILE NUMBER: 063327 HEARING DATES: 20 April 2007 & 30 April 2007 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 30 April 2007
DATE OF DECISION:
14 May 2007BEFORE: McGuire J - ADCJ (Deputy President); Thompson R - Non Judicial Member; Mayo-Ramsay R - Non Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Veterinary surgeon - application for a disciplinary finding - Veterinary Surgeons Act - veterinary surgeon - application for a disciplinary finding MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
M N Wade, solicitor, TressCox
P R Callaghan SC instructed by P Quinn, KQ LawyersORDERS: 1) That the name of the Respondent be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons or the Register of Specialists; (2) That the Respondent may not make any application for the restoration of his name to The Register prior to 10th May, 2011; (3) That the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the hearing.
1 The Tribunal is dealing with an application by the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (VSIC – the Applicant) for a disciplinary finding in relation to the Respondent, the veterinary surgeon.
2 The Applicant seeks a finding that the Respondent has engaged in serious misconduct in a professional respect pursuant to Section 22A of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (‘the Act’).
3 The Respondent does not dispute the conduct alleged.
General Description of Conduct
- ‘(a) The respondent contravened Order 1998/1 made under section 46 of the Stock Medicines Act 1989 (‘the Order’) in that he breached prohibition 3A of the Order by supplying an injectable steroid to a person; and/or
(b) The respondent engaged in conduct in the veterinary surgeon’s professional capacity that, if repeated or continued, is likely to damage the international reputation of Australia in relation to animal exports, animal welfare, animal produce or sporting events contrary to section 22A(1)(c)(iv) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986; and/or
(c) The respondent breached Rule 11 of the veterinary surgeons code of professional conduct established under section 23 of the Act in that he signed a certificate relating to the performance of veterinary service that was:
- (i) Not accurately completed to the best of the respondent’s knowledge, and
(ii) The respondent had not personally performed or supervised the performance of the service.’
4 The Respondent did not dispute the allegations in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the application. He accepted that he was guilty of serious misconduct in a professional respect with regard to the conduct set out in the said application.
5 In view of these admissions there is no utility in making a finding in relation to (b) of the application, to which he takes objection.
6 The Tribunal was furnished with an Agreed Statement of Facts which is in the following form:
- ‘ Blood Testing
1. On a date prior to 6 April 2006 the respondent was engaged in his…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson 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
- [2007] NSWADT 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address involved the interpretation and application of the Veterinary Surgeons Act in the context of the allegations against Dr. Thompson. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented by the Committee was sufficient to substantiate the claims of professional misconduct and incompetence. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate disciplinary measures that should be imposed if the allegations were substantiated, including whether removal from the Register and a prohibition on future applications for reinstatement were warranted, as well as the financial implications for Dr. Thompson.
The court found that the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence were substantiated by the evidence presented. The court was satisfied that Dr. Thompson's actions warranted the disciplinary measures sought by the Committee. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining high standards within the veterinary profession and noted that the disciplinary measures were necessary to protect public interest and maintain the integrity of the profession. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of Dr. Thompson's name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and imposed a prohibition on his ability to apply for reinstatement until 10 May 2011. Additionally, the court ordered Dr. Thompson to pay the costs of the hearing to the Committee.
In summary, the court upheld the Committee's application for disciplinary action against Dr. Thompson, finding that the allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence were substantiated. The court imposed the disciplinary measures sought by the Committee, including the removal of Dr. Thompson's name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, a prohibition on future applications for reinstatement, and an order for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) That the name of the Respondent be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons or the Register of Specialists; (2) That the Respondent may not make any application for the restoration of his name to The Register prior to 10th May, 2011; (3) That the Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the hearing.
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.