Chiu Chi Keung v. Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong
|
CACV 251/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF THE DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY OF THE VETERINARY SURGEONS BOARD ON 28TH APRIL 2008) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court Date of Hearing: 4 November 2010 Date of Handing Down Judgment: 16 November 2010 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.This was an appeal from a decision of the inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons Board that the appellant had been guilty of misconduct in a professional respect contrary to section 17(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance, Cap. 529 (“the Ordinance”). At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal judgment was reserved, which we now give. 2.The appellant was charged with the following matters which were said to be disciplinary offences:
3.In respect of the first charge, the inquiry committee held that, although the appellant had mentioned to the client that he had given Ketamin and Amoxicillin to the animal, the information which he had given was “ grossly insufficient”. In respect of the second charge, the inquiry committee held that by not including any indication of the appellant’s first name, surname or Chinese name and not containing any titles of qualification, the card was not accurate and fell well below the standard of a professional name card. 4.The background to the matter was that the animal in question had been bought to Dr Hilditch’s surgery by its owner, who said that the animal had had an operation the night before. The owner gave Dr Hilditch the name card, which she had in her possession and was the means by which she could identify the veterinary surgeon who treated her animal the night before. The details of the card are as follows:
The English translation of which is:
5.Dr Hilditch had been unable to locate a Dr Nelson in the list of veterinary surgeons and asked his nurse to contact Dr Nelson using the phone number on the card. Matters became fraught because, initially, the nurse had not revealed that she was a veterinary surgeon's nurse. She had pretended to be a layperson. When the phone was passed to Dr Hilditch, communication appeared to be at a standstill because of language difficulties. Eventually, the appellant did speak to the client and did reveal the names of the drugs which he had administered, but he gave no further details as he was not in his surgery at the time. Thereafter, there was no further contact by the appellant. It was on those basic facts that the inquiry committee reached its decision in respect of the first charge. 6.In respect of the second charge, the appellant was asked whether Dr Nelson referred to himself and he answered in the affirmative. Beyond that it is not known whether Nelson was a name the appellant had used for a long time or simply a name which he chose for the purposes of the card. There is no dispute that the name Nelson does not appear on the register of veterinary surgeons. This appeal
7.This court’s attention was drawn to the current Code of Practice for the Guidance of Registered Veterinary Surgeons. Although this court did not have available to it the Code which was in force at the time of the incident, it was agreed between the parties that, so far as is relevant as regards these proceedings, save for the numbering, the present code was in the same terms as the Code that was in force in 2008. Importantly, in Part II, under the general rubric Professional Relationships amongst Veterinary Surgeons, the heading of clause 8 is Referrals, second opinions and supersession. Clause 8.2 provides:
8.The client had clearly sought a second opinion in this case, namely from Dr Hilditch. There is no doubt that the appellant knew that the client was consulting another veterinary surgeon. It thus became the duty of the appellant, who in the context was the “attending veterinary surgeon”, to arrange for consultation with the person giving the second opinion, namely Dr Hilditch. At the very least he should have asked the client the name and contact details of the veterinary surgeon who she was then consulting. He could then have contacted Dr Hilditch again. 9.In this case, although the appellant did reveal the names of the drugs which had been administered to the animal, he did not provide Dr Hilditch with the information which the inquiry committee clearly considered was required. The reference to the information being grossly insufficient is a matter which was within the committee’s expertise and something about which they were entitled to use their own knowledge and experience to decide. Conversely, it is something about which this court would not know and could not bring its own knowledge to bear. In so saying, this court is not abdicating its role but, in the absence of any relevant evidence, the question as to the adequacy of the information given is clearly a matter for the inquiry committee to decide. The committee had amongst its members, veterinary surgeons for the very purpose of being able to understand what was and what was not necessary. 10.Although Ms Ng, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, put forward the case, particularly in the skeleton argument, that the legal adviser to the inquiry committee had overstepped the role of the legal adviser to a considerable extent, as this court made clear in the course of argument, whether or not that was so in this case was not a matter which would affect the outcome. On the face of the matter, the essential facts were not in dispute
11.In respect of second charge, no further evidence other than the admitted distribution, albeit apparently for a short time, of the card was relevant. Whether or not, the card was a name card or a business card or a visiting card was a matter of some discussion, but it matters not. It was clearly a card distributed by the appellant relating to his professional practice. Although not determinative of this case it can be noted that the use of the title “registered veterinary surgeon” is regarded as important under the Ordinance. Section 24(1) of the Ordinance provides:
12.The appellant was aggrieved that there was nothing in the Code of Practice, other than under clause 18.2, which could be said to relate to business or name cards. Clause 18.2 provides:
13.I consider that the committee was entitled to say that the card fell well below the standard of a professional name card. If a name is used on a professional card it can be expected that it will be the full or proper name of the relevant professional person. It clearly does not meet the standards expected of a professional person that he should use some name which is not the name under which he is admitted to professional practice. I consider that the card does lower the status of the veterinary profession in the eyes of the public. 14.In my view, the committee was correct in its holding. 15.I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal and make an order nisi of costs in favour of the respondent. Hon Le Pichon JA: 16.I agree.
Hon Stone J: 17.I agree with the judgment of the Vice President. 18.Of the two charges, the first clearly is the far more significant, and I confess that the subsidiary issue of the ‘name card’, and the correlative charge relating thereto, has given me pause for reflection; I cannot help thinking that at the end of the day this particular episode amounts to a good deal about not very much, and that had this been the only infraction alleged against Mr Chiu I doubt that this charge would have seen the light of day. 19.However, notwithstanding Miss Ng’s skilful and attractive presentation, if and in so far as the inquiry committee of the Veterinary Surgeons’ Board, having fully considered the factual situation, takes the view that, however it be characterized, a card in this form is professionally unacceptable ‑ as indeed it now has done ‑ ultimately I incline to the view that this is not a situation with which this court should interfere.
Ms Margaret Ng, instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the Appellant Ms Francis Yip, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||