Dr John Alan Walker v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 20 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 16 of 2007 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 03 April 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 20
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Mance
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[Delivered by Lord Mance]
The Board by its judgment delivered on 21 st November 2007 advised Her Majesty that Dr Walker's appeal against the order of The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ordering his removal from the register should be allowed, and that there should be substituted in lieu an order for his suspension for a period of 6 months. Dr Walker's appeal was opposed by The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which sought to uphold The Disciplinary Committee's order. Pursuant to the leave given by the Board's judgment, Dr Walker now applies for an order that the Royal College do pay the costs of his appeal to the Board.
The Royal College takes three points in relation to this application. First, it submits that it conflicts with a principle to be derived from cases such as City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v. Booth [2000] COD 338, Gorlov v. Institute of Chartered Accountants [2001] EWHC Admin 220 and, most recently, Baxendale-Walker v. The Law Society [2007] EWCA Civ 233. Secondly, it submits that a split order should be made because of submissions made by Dr Walker, but not accepted by the Board (cf paragraph 14 of its previous judgment), relating to the Disciplinary Committee's view of the Jockey Club's attitude towards offending such as Dr Walker's. Thirdly, it points out that other well-wishing members of the profession organised an appeal fund, as a result of which Dr Walker received considerable financial support to pursue his appeal.
As to the first point, the Board, without commenting upon or going into the principle advanced, considers that it cannot bear on the present situation. The authorities relied on concern the different position of costs before disciplinary tribunals or before a court upon a first appeal against an administrative decision by a body such as a police or regulatory authority. In the present case, the Disciplinary Committee made no order for costs in respect of the proceedings before it (in which Dr Walker was represented by counsel), and no-one has challenged that.
The present appeal came before the Board under s.17 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, subs. (2) of which provides that
"The Council of the College may appear as respondent on any such appeal and, for the purpose of enabling directions to be given as to the costs of any such appeal, shall be deemed to be a party thereto whether they appeared on the hearing of the appeal or not."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
...Truro [2009] EWHC 168 (Admin), DCSouthbourne Sheet Metal Co Ltd, In re [1993] 1 WLR 244, CAWalker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2008] UKPC 20, PCThe following additional cases were cited in argument:Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd [1986] AC 965; [1986] 2 WLR 1051; [1986] 2 A......
-
Competition and Markets Authority v Flynn Pharma Ltd
...in proceedings before the first instance professional tribunal does not apply to any appeal from that decision. In Walker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2008] UKPC 20 the Privy Council had allowed Dr Walker's appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal Coll......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd
...hearings before the tribunal, having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Walker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2008] UKPC 20 (“Walker v Royal College”) that in the case of a successful appeal against a decision of a disciplinary tribunal, different considerations may app......
-
David Owusu Yianoma v Bar Standards Board
...first instance professional tribunal does not apply to any appeal from that decision. In Walker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2008] UKPC 20 the Privy Council had allowed Dr Walker's appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons......