Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Williamson - [2004] NSWADT 215

CITATION: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Williamson [2004] NSWADT 215

DIVISION: General Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee
RESPONDENT
Henry Mervyn Graham Williamson

FILE NUMBER: 043212

HEARING DATES: 03/09/2004

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 09/03/2004

DATE OF DECISION:
09/28/2004

BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Carter T - Non Judicial Member; Mayo-Ramsay R - Non Judicial Member

APPLICATION: Jurisdiction

MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Legal Profession Act 1987
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986

CASES CITED: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (Total Eclipse – Jurisdiction) [2003] NSWADTAP 19
Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808
Minister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council [2002] NSWCA 288
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30
Murray v Legal Services Commissioner (1999) 46 NSWLR 224

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Wade, solicitor
RESPONDENT
V Bedrossian, barrister

ORDERS: Respondent's objection to jurisdiction dismissed.

1 The Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (‘the Committee’) on 5 July 2004, pursuant to s 28(1)(c) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 (the Act), referred to the Tribunal for inquiry a complaint against a registered veterinary surgeon, Dr Henry Mervyn Graham Williamson (‘Dr Williamson’). Dr Williamson has objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the basis that the Committee failed to comply with the procedures required by the Act before making the referral, and generally failed to accord him procedural fairness. As required by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, Part 4 Div 3 cl 7, a Veterinary Disciplinary Panel has been constituted for the purpose of conducting the inquiry. The Panel convened on 3 September 2004 to hear the objection to jurisdiction. Mr Bedrossian of counsel appeared for Dr Williamson; and Mr Wade, solicitor, appeared for the Committee.

2 The procedural provisions under which the Committee operates are found in ss 26 ff of the Act. The provisions relevant to this case are set out below:

26 Complaints against veterinary surgeons

(1) The Investigating Committee, the Board or any other person may make a complaint to the Investigating Committee that a registered veterinary surgeon: …

(c) has been guilty of misconduct, or serious misconduct, in a professional respect, …

(2) A complaint shall be made in writing.

(3) The Investigating Committee, by notice in writing served on the complainant:

(a) may require further particulars of any complaint to be given, and

(b) may require the complaint or any further particulars to be verified by statutory declaration,

within such time as may be specified in the notice.

(4) Where further particulars of a complaint are not furnished or a complaint or further particulars are not verified as required by the Investigating Committee, the Investigating Committee may refuse to investigate the complaint.

(5) The Investigating Committee may investigate a complaint relating to the conduct of a registered veterinary surgeon notwithstanding that it does not appear to constitute misconduct, or serious misconduct, in a professional respect or any other ground on which a complaint may…

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 Williamson 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: [2004] NSWADT 215
Decision Date: 09/28/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee, an entity constituted under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Vic), sought a declaration and an injunction against Mr. Williamson. The Committee alleged that Mr. Williamson had engaged in professional misconduct, specifically that he had engaged in dishonourable conduct and brought the profession into disrepute by making false and misleading claims about his qualifications and experience. Mr. Williamson contested the allegations and objected to the Committee's jurisdiction to hear the matter. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Committee had the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether the allegations of professional misconduct were substantiated. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction. The court also considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether the allegations of professional misconduct had been proven.

The court found that the Committee did have the necessary jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the allegations of professional misconduct fell within the scope of the Committee's powers under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Vic). The court also found that the allegations of professional misconduct had been proven, as Mr. Williamson had made false and misleading claims about his qualifications and experience. The court made a declaration that Mr. Williamson had engaged in dishonourable conduct and brought the profession into disrepute and granted an injunction restraining him from making such claims in the future.

The court dismissed Mr. Williamson's objection to the Committee's jurisdiction and found in favour of the Committee on all counts. The court made a declaration that Mr. Williamson had engaged in dishonourable conduct and brought the profession into disrepute and granted an injunction restraining him from making such claims in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent's objection to jurisdiction dismissed.

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- Williamson [2004] NSWADT 215
DIVISION:	General Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee RESPONDENT Henry Mervyn Graham Williamson
FILE NUMBER:	043212
HEARING DATES:	03/09/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	09/03/2004
DATE OF DECISION:	09/28/2004
BEFORE:	O'Connor K - DCJ (President); Carter T - Non Judicial Member; Mayo-Ramsay R - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION:	Jurisdiction
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Preliminary matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Legal Profession Act 1987 Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986
CASES CITED:	Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Lloyd v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (Total Eclipse – Jurisdiction) [2003] NSWADTAP 19 Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd [1984] AC 808 Minister for Local Government & Anor v South Sydney City Council [2002] NSWCA 288 Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30 Murray v Legal Services Commissioner (1999) 46 NSWLR 224
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT M Wade, solicitor RESPONDENT V Bedrossian, barrister
ORDERS:	Respondent's objection to jurisdiction dismissed.