Kallman v Veterinary Practitioners Board [2022] NSWCATOD 60

Kallman v Veterinary Practitioners Board [2022] NSWCATOD 60

The Tribunal found that the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Board's disciplinary finding because the evidence did not credibly establish that Missy was discharged at the owners' insistence, the Applicant did not provide sworn evidence of his account, and the accepted expert and clinical material supported the conclusion that discharging Missy, a non-ambulatory dog with tick poisoning and lung involvement, demonstrated a lack of skill, judgment or care within s 35(k) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (NSW). Because the disciplinary finding was affirmed and no exceptional circumstances were shown, cl 26 required a costs order against Dr Kallman.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Review of a Veterinary Practitioners Board Disciplinary Finding Under S 48 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
The decision under review was affirmed and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'veterinary Practitioners Code of Professional Conduct' 'tick Paralysis Treatment' 'discharge of Non Ambulatory Dog With Tick Poisoning' 'correct and Preferable Decision' 'costs in Veterinary Practitioner Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'professional Discipline' 'veterinary Practice' 'costs'] ['unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'veterinary Practitioners Code of Professional Conduct' 'tick Paralysis Treatment' 'discharge of Non Ambulatory Dog With Tick Poisoning' 'correct and Preferable Decision' 'costs in Veterinary Practitioner Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Review of a Veterinary Practitioners Board Disciplinary Finding Under S 48 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (nsw) / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Board's finding that Dr Kallman engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct under s 35(k) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (NSW) was the correct and preferable decision." 'Whether Missy was discharged at the insistence of her owners.' 'Whether Missy was in a clinical condition at the time of discharge such that her discharge was contrary to accepted standards of the veterinary profession and demonstrated a lack of skill, care and judgment.' "Whether the Board's internal investigation processes affected the Tribunal's administrative review task." "Whether the Applicant should pay the Respondent's costs under cl 26, Division 6, Part 4 of Schedule 5 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the correct and preferable decision was to affirm the Board's disciplinary finding because the evidence did not credibly establish that Missy was discharged at the owners' insistence, the Applicant did not provide sworn evidence of his account, and the accepted expert and clinical material supported the conclusion that discharging Missy, a non-ambulatory dog with tick poisoning and lung involvement, demonstrated a lack of skill, judgment or care within s 35(k) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (NSW). Because the disciplinary finding was affirmed and no exceptional circumstances were shown, cl 26 required a costs order against Dr Kallman.

Court Disposition

The decision under review was affirmed and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The decision under review is affirmed.' 'The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent, of and incidental to these proceedings, as agreed or assessed on the ordinary basis.']