Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Hitchcock [2025] QCAT 200

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth [2025] QCATA 43

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380

Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v McIntosh [2011] QCAT 417

C. Wilson of Counsel instructed by the Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland

O. Cook of Counsel instructed by Colin Biggers & Paisley Solicitors

• [1] Nathan Keith Henry Hitchcock is a veterinary surgeon of almost 20 years' standing, practicing as the only veterinarian in Gayndah.
• [2] Thursday 16 December 2021 started as a busy but usual day. Soon after opening, a long-standing client attended without an appointment. She had with her a very sick pup, with profuse vomiting and diarrhea, dehydrated and depressed mentation.
• [3] The client was initially attended to by a receptionist who ascertained the animal was not vaccinated against canine parvovirus ("CPV"). At the time, CPV was prevalent in the area. Another dog had recently been in the clinic hospital with CPV and there was a risk that, despite comprehensive infection control, CPV may have persisted in the clinic.
• [4] Dr Hitchcock saw the client and the sick animal within minutes of her arrival. A test for CPV was negative, but he none-the-less formed the view that the animal almost certainly had CPV. This was based on his observations and clinical assessment of the animal including the distinctive smell of CPV faeces, his knowledge of the client's residence, the local epidemic, and the high proportion of CPV false negative test results.
• [5] The dog was in deep distress and in Dr Hitchcock's assessment likely to deteriorate and die within hours unless admitted and intensively treated. He did not want to immediately admit the animal because, if his provisional diagnosis of CPV was wrong, there was a possibility of the pup contracting CPV, an outcome that would certainly worsen the already poor prognosis.
• [6] He wanted to retest the animal in a couple of hours if it continued to deteriorate, anticipating that retesting would be positive for CPV. He also counselled the client on euthanasia as an appropriate treatment given the very poor prognosis.
• [7] The client declined to admit the dog on financial grounds, and refused permission for the animal to be euthanised.
• [8] Dr Hitchcock, with (he says) the client's consent, administered or prescribed for later administration by the client:

(a) Meloxicam injection (0.1 ml of a 5mg/mL meloxicam solution), a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug;

(b) Cerenia injection (0.3ml of a 10mg/mL maropitant solution), for the prevention of acute vomiting;

(c) Protech C4 + C2i vaccination, for protection against CPV;

(d) Scourban, a diarrhoea medication with multiple active ingredients, including antibiotics;

(e) ProN8ure Paste, a probiotic.

• [9] Dr Hitchcock's evidence was that these medicines were:

(a) to relieve the animal's suffering and distress;

(b) to prevent CPV infection if the negative test was correct despite his confidence otherwise; and

(c) to support the client, well known to him, and the pup that was nearing death, in circumstances where the client seemed not to understand the seriousness of the infection.

• [10] He says he advised the client to return to the clinic in an hour or two for retesting, confident that the result would by then be positive. However, the client took the animal home and did not bring it back, instead intending to nurse it back to health. The dog died some hours later.

• [11] The client made a complaint to the Veterinary Surgeon's Board ("Board") resulting in disciplinary investigation under s 22 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld) ("Act").
• [12] Dr Hitchcock required the Board under s 22B(4) of the Act to refer the disciplinary proceeding to this Tribunal.
• [13] The referral states the following ground.

The ground for disciplinary action is that Nathan Keith Henry Hitchcock (Registrant) has behaved in a way that constitutes misconduct in a professional respect:

(a) pursuant to section 22F of [the Act] in that he:

(i) was negligent or incompetent in the practice of his profession; and/or

(ii) failed to keep such records as are prescribed by the Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2016 (Regulation) or so far as are not prescribed as the Board directs; and/or

(b) has otherwise engaged in conduct substantially below the standard expected of him by his peers and/or members of the public.

• [14] Negligence or incompetence is an incidence of misconduct in a professional respect, stated in s 22F(f) of the Act. Another incidence is a failure to keep records as prescribed: in s 22F(i) and see s 24 of the Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2016 (Qld) ("Regulation") and the Board's Veterinary Records guideline.[1]
• [15] The particulars of the alleged misconduct stated in the referral by the Board are as follows.
  1. The Registrant failed to keep the records required of him by section 24(1) of the Regulation and the Board's guidelines.

PARTICULARS

(a) The records contain insufficient details of any physical examination or tests performed.

(b) The records do not contain the full particulars of the treatment given.

(c) The records do not include vital parameters, such as [the dog's] respiration rate and heart rate.

(d) The records do not contain details of [the dog's] mucous membrane colour, or that the Registrant conducted this examination.

(e) The records contain no details of the differential diagnosis made by the Registrant.

(f) The records do not adequately record the Registrant gave [the dog] an injection of Meloxicam 20ml and Cerenia 20ml.

(g) The records do not record the Registrant gave [the client] worming tablets to give to [the dog] all the instructions given in that regard.

(h) The records do not record or adequately record details of the instructions given when [the dog] was discharged.

(i) The records do not record the owner's informed consent for the treatment provided.

1. The Registrant's treatment of [the dog] was negligent, incompetent and/or otherwise below the standard expected.

PARTICULARS

(a) The Registrant failed to admit [the dog] for further treatment.

(b) In the alternative to subparagraph (a), the Registrant failed to:

(i) Refer the owners to another veterinary practitioner equipped to manage [the dog's] care.

(ii) Provide the owners with adequate therapeutic options.

(iii) Implement or offer appropriate outpatient treatment.

(c) The Registrant failed to have a plan in place to manage like events as well as appropriate biosecurity, sanitation and decontamination processes so that he could continue to provide care to [the dog].

(d) Despite obtaining a negative parvovirus test, the Registrant did not conduct, or offer to conduct:

(i) A faecal smear test.

(ii) A blood smear test.

(iii) A PCV/TP test.

(e) Further to subparagraph (d), the Registrant failed to conduct a faecal test to ascertain whether there was concurrent ascariasis, another possible primary cause of [the dog's] clinical symptoms.

(f) The registrant failed to assess [the dog's] mucous membrane colour.

(g) Having noted that it "smells like parvo", the Registrant failed to ascertain if [the dog] had haemorrhagic gastroenteritis.

(h) The Registrant failed to adequately inform [the client] of an appropriate case management plan, solely advising her that if [the dog] continued to deteriorate, she should return so that a further parvovirus test could be undertaken.

(i) It was inappropriate to inject Meloxicam in circumstances where the patient was anorexic and had significant gastroenteritis systems, suggesting associated dehydration/hypovolemia.

(j) The Registrant failed to provide antibiotic therapy and fluid therapy.

• [16] The following people gave evidence at hearing:

(a) Dr Hitchcock (Respondent);

(b) Ms Jacquelyn Ballin, receptionist and assistant to Dr Hitchcock;

(c) Dr John Mallyon, expert witness;

(d) Dr Richard Burchell, expert witness.

• [17] The two expert witnesses' reports were also before the Tribunal along with a Joint Report. An agreed statement of facts and disputed facts was also filed.
• [18] The Board intended to call the complainant, who had made four affidavits. However, she was unable to attend in person. The Respondent objected to her evidence being given by telephone, and she was unable to give evidence by video, lacking immediate technology and internet access. The basis of the objection was that her credibility as a witness was in issue and as such her presence was necessary for proper cross-examination. The Tribunal noted there were issues of credit. Neither party favoured an adjournment to allow for video evidence to be arranged.
• [19] The Tribunal adjourned to consider this preliminary issue. However, the Board decided that the complainant's evidence was not necessary.
• [20] In its review of the filed materials, the Tribunal formed the view that testimony from the complainant went only to the question of what she had been told by the Respondent about her pet's care needs, including euthanasia, and whether she had consented to certain treatments. Even taken at its highest, the Tribunal considered such testimony was not essential to determination of the disciplinary questions before it. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to proceed in the circumstances.

• [21] The Act empowers the Board to take disciplinary action.

(1) Subject to section 22B, where the board is of the opinion that a veterinary surgeon has engaged in misconduct in a professional respect, it may, instead of referring the matter to the tribunal -

(a) order the veterinary surgeon to pay to the board by way of penalty a specified sum of money in no case exceeding 10 penalty units; or

(b) admonish or reprimand the veterinary surgeon; or

(c) adjourn the matter of dealing with the veterinary surgeon pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) for a period not exceeding 12 months.

(2) An order made pursuant to subsection (1)(a) may contain a direction that the registration of the veterinary surgeon concerned be suspended for a specified period if the veterinary surgeon fails to pay the sum of money to the board within a specified time and, if the money is not paid within that time, his or her registration as a veterinary surgeon shall be suspended accordingly.

(2A) Suspension pursuant to subsection (2) shall be in addition to and not in lieu of payment of the sum of money.

(3) Where the board adjourns a matter for a period pursuant to subsection (1)(c) it shall reconsider the matter at the end of that period and, taking into consideration the conduct, demeanour and behaviour of the veterinary surgeon concerned during that period, proceed pursuant to subsection (1)(a) or (b) or take no further action.

(4) Where the board deals with a veterinary surgeon pursuant to subsection (1) it may order the veterinary surgeon to pay to the board such costs as it thinks fit.

• [22] Section 22B(4) entitles a veterinary surgeon to require the Board to refer a disciplinary proceeding involving allegations of misconduct in a professional respect to the Tribunal in its original jurisdiction: see s 15A(a).
• [23] "Misconduct in a professional respect" is defined in s 22F as follows, with the relevant provisions for this case being paras (f) and (i).

22F Misconduct in a professional respect

Without limiting the ways a veterinary surgeon may engage in misconduct in a professional respect, a veterinary surgeon is engaging in "misconduct in a professional respect" if the veterinary surgeon:

(a) is habitually drunk or is addicted to any deleterious drug; or

(b) conducts any veterinary premises or other place for the practice of veterinary science where the veterinary surgeon himself or herself is not in full-time attendance thereat, unless a veterinary surgeon employed by him or her is in full-time attendance thereat for the purpose of practice and supervision during the hours at which such premises are open for the practice of veterinary science, and the name of such veterinary surgeon employed by him or her is conspicuously posted up or indicated on the premises by means of a name plate or other device in letters of equal dimensions to those of the veterinary surgeon's name; or

(c) signs or gives in his or her professional capacity a certificate, notice, report or like document that is incomplete or is false or misleading in a material respect; or

(d) contravenes or fails to comply with, or counsels, procures, aids or abets another person to contravene or fail to comply with, or does or omits to do any act for the purpose of enabling another person to contravene or fail to comply with, any Act or other law with respect to dangerous drugs whether or not the contravention or failure to comply is the subject of court proceedings; or

(e) practises fraud or deception in the practice of his or her profession; or

(f) is negligent or incompetent in the practice of his or her profession; or

(g) is convicted of an offence involving cruelty to an animal; or

(h) fails to keep the premises on which the veterinary surgeon practises his or her profession and all equipment contained therein in a clean and sanitary condition; or

(i) fails to keep such records as are prescribed or so far as are not prescribed as the board directs; or

(j) assaults, resists, obstructs or hinders or threatens or intimidates a member or deputy member of the board or any officer of the board, in the exercise of his or her powers under this Act; or

(k) directs or allows a person who is not a veterinary surgeon to practise veterinary science in relation to an animal under the veterinary surgeon's care; or

(l) holds out that a person who is not a veterinary surgeon may practise veterinary science; or

(m) conducts a veterinary practice at premises other than veterinary premises; or

(n) does not comply with a condition of an approval given under part 4A.

• [24] The role of this Tribunal and the scheme of the Act are briefly outlined in Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin,[2] and respectfully adopted here.
• [25] That case also surveyed comprehensively the authorities as to 'misconduct in a professional respect',[3] and we also respectfully adopt and apply that analysis.

• [26] Veterinary practice takes place in the real world. Here, Dr Hitchcock was managing a busy practice in a rural centre and had a long history with Ms Allan as a client, extending, on his evidence, almost 20 years.
• [27] Dr Hitchcock has, apparently, an unblemished record over a near-20-year period.
• [28] We found Dr Hitchcock to be a highly credible witness, confident but appropriate in his answers. Expert witnesses were also credible.
• [29] A major difference between the expert witness evidence and Dr Hitchcock was the extent of additional testing required in the circumstances. The joint report opined that certain further tests were necessary. Dr Hitchcock submitted that this conclusion is only relevant if the client could afford these tests, and on Dr Hitchcock's uncontested evidence she told him she could not afford this extra care. Further despite Dr Hitchcock's recommendation that she return with the animal if it deteriorated, she did not represent.

• [30] The Board submitted that the absence of a positive CPV test meant the parvo diagnosis was inconclusive. Dr Hitchcock's evidence was that he thought the test result was a false negative, and that false negative results were common.
• [31] The Tribunal accepts Dr Hitchcock's evidence that he was reasonably certain of the diagnosis based on other objective criteria including the animal's presentation, the distinctive smell, and palpation being inconsistent with an alternative diagnosis, namely ascariasis.
• [32] On Meloxicam, the expert evidence was that this medicine was contra-indicated. Dr Hitchcock forcefully disagreed, submitting that, given the client's rejection of euthanasia treatment and the inappropriateness of supplying S8 medications for home administration, Meloxicam was an appropriate pain relief medication with minor contraindications and major indications. On his submission, failure to administer pain relief would have amounted to cruelty to the animal.
• [33] The Tribunal accepts the expert evidence. However, we also accept that Dr Hitchcock considered the options open to him and the administration of Meloxicam in the circumstances of a dying animal in pain, whose owner was unable to pay for or was refusing other recommended care, was a reasonable clinical judgement and does not amount to misconduct in a professional respect. We do so considering the authority of Griffin discussed below.[4]
• [34] The Tribunal relies upon the agreed facts stated in the Amended Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts. As to disputed facts, the Tribunal finds, based on Dr Hitchcock's evidence to the requisite standard supports Dr Hitchcock's explanation or version of events. This means the Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Hitchcock explained professionally and competently to the client the nature and seriousness of the CPV in a pup, the treatment pathways for the animal, including the costs and required deposit for inpatient care and the alternatives to that care.
• [35] The evidence about the client's responses was limited to the formal complaint that was in the materials and Dr Hitchcock's evidence. However, we are satisfied, taking the initiating complaint at its highest, that, to the requisite standard:

(a) Dr Hitchcock was told by the client that she did not believe the dog was as seriously ill as he concluded in his clinical assessment, and that she told him she could nurse it back to health at home;

(b) the client consented to administration of medications, although there is no evidence from her as to how well-informed that consent was;

(c) the client told Dr Hitchcock that she could not afford the recommended treatment;

(d) Dr Hitchcock asked the client to represent later that day for further testing if the dog's health deteriorated;

(e) Dr Hitchcock informed the client the dog would likely deteriorate and die within hours if not intensively treated.

• [36] The puppy, absent intensive inpatient care, was in a moribund state: neither a diagnosis nor a differential diagnosis was relevant to future management of the animal once the client removed it from Dr Hitchcock's practice and did not return. Further tests could not make any difference in circumstances where the client refused or could not afford the recommended treatment.
• [37] The Tribunal is satisfied that the dog died some hours after the consultation. It may have been at 1.00am as stated in the client's material; it may have been earlier. This is consistent with Dr Hitchcock's evidence that he held grave fears for the animal's prospects and that without treatment, it would die within hours of the consultation.
• [38] In terms of each of the particularised matters in paragraph [5] of the Referral, we find as follows.

Alleged misconduct Referral paragraph [15]

(a) The Registrant failed to admit [the dog] for further treatment.

(j) The Registrant failed to provide antibiotic therapy and fluid therapy.

We find that the veterinarian recommended admission but the client declined authority to admit the animal and would not pay for or could not afford inpatient care and treatment.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the veterinarian reasonably concluded, absent inpatient care, that the animal would die within hours from CPV and that euthanasia was the best available treatment. This advice was not accepted or acted on by the client. He then recommended alternative care stated paragraph [8] above that the Tribunal concludes was reasonable and professional in the circumstances.

The Tribunal concludes that these grounds are not made out.

(b) In the alternative to subparagraph (a), the Registrant failed to:

(i) Refer the owners to another veterinary practitioner equipped to manage [the dog's] care.

(ii) Provide the owners with adequate therapeutic options.

(iii) Implement or offer appropriate outpatient treatment.

On the uncontested evidence, there were no other veterinarians in the town to whom the client might be conveniently referred.

We find that the veterinarian offered reasonable and appropriate therapeutic options. The client acted on some of them but declined to act on others.

We find that outpatient treatment provided was, in the circumstances, appropriate, and did not amount to professional misconduct because it was proportionate to the animal's presentation and the client's needs and ability in regard to its treatment.

(c) The Registrant failed to have a plan in place to manage like events as well as appropriate biosecurity, sanitation and decontamination processes so that he could continue to provide care to [the dog].

There was no evidence that the veterinarian failed to have in place proper plans as particularised. The Tribunal concludes on the available evidence that the veterinarian and the practice generally was operating to an appropriate standard in these regards.

(d) Despite obtaining a negative parvovirus test, the Registrant did not conduct, or offer to conduct:

(i) A faecal smear test.

(ii) A blood smear test.

(iii) A PCV/TP test.

(e) Further to subparagraph (d), the Registrant failed to conduct a faecal test to ascertain whether there was concurrent ascariasis, another possible primary cause of [the dog's] clinical symptoms.

(f) The registrant failed to assess [the dog's] mucous membrane colour.

(g) Having noted that it "smells like parvo", the Registrant failed to ascertain if [the dog] had haemorrhagic gastroenteritis.

In the circumstances of an animal in rapid decline and a robust diagnosis of PCV based on clinical observations, knowledge of the long-standing client, prevalence CPV in the area, and a client reluctant to accept or pay for tests and treatment, it was not professional misconduct not to conduct further tests. Further there was no utility in further test particularised in all the circumstances, including physical examination that indicated ascariasis was very unlikely.

We find the diagnostic conclusion reached by Dr Hitchcock was reasonable and professional.

(h) The Registrant failed to adequately inform [the client] of an appropriate case management plan, solely advising her that if [the dog] continued to deteriorate, she should return so that a further parvovirus test could be undertaken.

On the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the veterinarian did in fact adequately inform the client of future care of the animal. Palliative care was offered and medication dispensed consistently with the care plan.

The Tribunal finds that the veterinarian did in fact advise the client to return for further testing.

(i) It was inappropriate to inject Meloxicam in circumstances where the patient was anorexic and had significant gastroenteritis systems, suggesting associated dehydration/hypovolemia.

The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the veterinarian as to the therapeutic and pastoral care reasons for administering Meloxicam and that, in the circumstances, that did not amount to professional misconduct.

• [39] The Tribunal also considered whether, despite the above findings in Dr Hitchcock's favour, taken as a whole, the circumstances evidenced misconduct in a professional respect. Given that this was one incident and not a pattern of potential errors, we consider the factual matrix in its entirety does not show misconduct in a professional respect by Dr Hitchcock.

• [40] The Regulation by section 24 requires a veterinary surgeon to keep a record for each animal treated:

24 Record of treatment of animals

(1) A veterinary surgeon must, for each animal treated by the veterinary surgeon, keep a record including -

(a) the animal's identifying details; and

(b) the following information for each consultation about the animal -

(i) details of any condition or injury of the animal;

(ii) any provisional or definitive diagnosis;

(iii) full details, including the date, of any examination, procedure or test performed;

(iv) full details of any treatment given, including details of any drugs administered or dispensed;

(v) results of any treatment given;

(vi) details of any instructions given when the animal is discharged.

Maximum penalty - 10 penalty units.

(2) The veterinary surgeon must keep the record for 3 years from the day the last information about the animal is included in the record.

Maximum penalty - 10 penalty units.

• [41] The Board's Guideline for records states minimum standards for record keeping and state the purpose of records as follows:

Veterinary patient records provide a contemporaneous record of the veterinary management of an animal. They serve as an important basis for review and evaluation of veterinary care and are essential for the continuity of care of the patient.

Complete patient records are the most important part of a veterinarian's defence against a complaint.

• [42] The list of records is extensive, but some are qualified by necessity and utility, for example:

(a) history that is "relevant";

(b) physical examination findings, "to the extent relevant to the veterinary management of the patient" ;

(c) other matters "where applicable".

• [43] Thus, record keeping involves a degree of discretion in the veterinary surgeon.
• [44] Section 22F of the Act states an incident of misconduct in a professional respect for record keeping as follows:

(i) fails to keep such records as are prescribed or so far as are not prescribed as the board directs.

• [45] The Board's Code of Conduct refers to record keeping as well:

Veterinarians are to:

keep accurate and concise veterinary records for animals under their care, including records of client consent, as prescribed in the Act and Veterinary Surgeons Regulation 2016, and as defined by the VSBQ in policies and guidelines.

• [46] It is not contentious that Dr Hitchcock's records were not the comprehensive records stated in the Guideline. Dr Burchell conceded in oral evidence that certain vital parameters were not relevant to the management this particular animal's veterinary management. Further Dr Hitchcock submitted that his records could have contained more information but were not relevant to management of the animal's treatment.
• [47] Expert evidence conceded the records made would have been of assistance if the animal had been referred to another veterinary surgeon.
• [48] The Tribunal concludes that Dr Hitchcock's records did not, in every respect, include all records he might, in ideal circumstances, keep. The question for the Tribunal is not however whether all records were kept but whether the failure of record keeping constitutes misconduct in a professional respect by Dr Hitchcock.
• [49] The authorities alluded to above explore the test to be applied in finding misconduct in a professional respect, most notably Griffin.[5] That case concludes as follows (citations omitted):

[33] The Tribunal accepts the submission advanced by Mr Wilson for the Board that Pillai's case suggests a 'higher bar,' in that the conduct in question needs to be more wanting than the test stated in Cooke's case. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the potential consequences that may flow from any adverse findings made about Dr Griffin's conduct and his practice as a veterinary surgeon, the Tribunal will apply the test that suggests a 'higher bar', being the test in Bayliss' case that endorsed the approach taken in Pillai's case.

[34] Bayliss' case said that, as to whether the facts as found establish 'negligence so gross', it is necessary for the Tribunal to 'find something more' than mere negligence by the civil standard.55 Bayliss' case accepted the approach set out in Pillai's case. Pillai's case said that in assessing the evidence and making a finding of 'professional reprobation', there must be evidence 'established by...an appropriately qualified person or persons'. Pillai's case also said that the statutory test of 'misconduct in a professional respect' is not met by 'mere professional incompetence or by deficiencies in the practice of the profession'. Pillai's case said there must be something more, such as 'a deliberate departure from accepted standards or such serious negligence, as although not deliberate, to portray indifference and an abuse of the privileges which accompany registration as a medical practitioner'.

• [50] The Tribunal respectfully adopts and applies this reasoning. In our view the failure of record keeping in the limited circumstances of this case do not amount to misconduct in a professional respect. That failing is more properly characterised as deficiencies in management of this particular case.

• [51] The standard stated above applies equally to our findings about diagnosis and testing. If we are wrong in the above conclusions, we consider the assessment of the patient and the treatment decisions made would not, on the Board's case, amount to misconduct in a professional respect: any deficiencies amount to mere deficiencies in the practice of the profession in this particular case. We can find no deliberate departures from accepted standards that portray indifference or abuse of privileges attaching to registration as a veterinary surgeon.

• [52] The Tribunal concludes that on the evidence before it and in the circumstances, Dr Hitchcock did not engage in misconduct in a professional respect.

• [53] The Board seeks an order for costs, and for the Tribunal to take into account the referral to the Tribunal required by Dr Hitchcock
• [54] Dr Hitchcock submits that costs should follow the event, and for the Tribunal to take into account the Board's late withdrawal of its lay evidence.
• [55] Costs are discretionary in the Tribunal under s 15D of the Act and Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Ch 2 Div 6. It is well established that costs do not automatically follow the event.[6]
• [56] The Tribunal is unable to determine any costs order on material before it. In any case the parties are encouraged to agree costs. An order is made for filing submissions about costs should agreement not be reached.

1. The disciplinary proceedings against Nathan Keith Henry Hitchcock for misconduct in a professional respect in matter OCR056-23 are dismissed.
2. Within 28 days of the making of these orders the parties shall file any submissions they seek to rely on in relation to the costs of the proceedings should they not resolve the issue between them.

[1] 'Veterinary records' Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland (Web Page, 22 June 2023) .

[2] [2016] QCAT 380, [8]-[11], [16].

[4] Veterinary Surgeons Board v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380.

[5] Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380.

[6] See analysis in Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v McIntosh [2011] QCAT 417; Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Butterworth [2025] QCATA 43.