Veterinary Practitioners Board of NSW v Sam Kovac 

2025/00367476

PROCEDURE – on 29 November 2024, the Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales (the Board) lodged an Application for Disciplinary Findings and Orders with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal or NCAT) against Dr Kovac (the Disciplinary Application) – the application concerned allegations about Dr Kovac’s conduct as a veterinary practitioner – Dr Kovac sought dismissal of the disciplinary proceedings – alternatively, if the proceedings were not dismissed in their entirety, Dr Kovac sought a strike-out of three of the eight complaints particularised in the Disciplinary Application – Dr Kovac contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the disciplinary proceedings because the Board had not properly delegated its statutory functions under the Veterinary Practice Act 2003 (NSW) (the VP Act) to the committee established to investigate and determine complaints made against him – it was further contended that NCAT lacked jurisdiction to hear certain allegations due to asserted procedural deficiencies or failures to comply with statutory procedures under the VP Act – at first instance, it was held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints six to eight of the Disciplinary Application – it was also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints one to five of the Disciplinary Application – proceedings were subsequently listed for case management directions – whether the Tribunal erred in its consideration of whether it had jurisdiction to deal with the complaint, by proceeding on the basis that it was relevant to consider whether the Board’s findings that Dr Kovac was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, and professional misconduct (which findings are a statutory precondition to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings) were made in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the VP Act for the making of said findings – whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the Board’s failure to invite Dr Kovac to make written representations with respect to certain additional matters arising from the Board’s investigation into Dr Kovac’s conduct (“the additional matters”) amounted to a “substantial bypassing” of the procedures prescribed in Part 5 of the VP Act, in circumstances where the first respondent did make written representations with respect to those additional matters, which were considered by the Board prior to the making of its findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct – whether the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction in failing to determine a clearly articulated and substantive argument made by the Board to it, being that any failure by the Board to comply with the requirements of s 41 of the VP Act did not result in any procedural unfairness to Dr Kovac, in circumstances where Dr Kovac made written representations on the additional matters which were considered by the Board prior to the making of its findings.

Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales v Kovac [2025] NSWCATOD 118