Wong on Civil Liability

Veterinary Negligence in Australia

Work-in-progress, 9 March 2024

[Preface] Reported judicial decisions on veterinary negligence are uncommon. On this webpage, I summarise the relevant judicial and administrative decisions on veterinary negligence.

Veterinary Medicine is an insular profession. Regulation of veterinary medicine in Australia appears to be predominantly industry self-regulation (eg, Veterinary Practice Boards). There are some literature on veterinary negligence in Australian veterinary industry publications, eg, Australian Veterinary Journal. However, little about the relevant legal principles and law about veterinary negligence is otherwise available to the community. 

[A] Duty of Care

The Duty of Care of a Veterinarian to its patients and to pet owners are well established: Richard Douglas, Civil Liability Australia (LexisNexis Australia) [14,055]: "... Over the last century, the status of being a “professional” has broadened such that it now comprehends lawyers, medical practitioners, engineers, architects, dentists, accountants and valuers and probably naval architects, patent attorneys, pharmacists, surveyors (land and quantity), geologists, veterinarians, agricultural (and other) scientists, investment advisors, stockbrokers, optometrists, psychologists, physiotherapists, speech therapists and occupational therapists." 

Skilled Persons: 

• In Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 75 ALJR 734, Gummow J at 744–745, quoting the judgment of Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 at 487, stated that  'In Australia, it has been accepted that the standard of care to be observed by a person with some special skill or competence is that of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill. But, that standard is not determined solely or even primarily by reference to the practice followed or supported by a responsible body of opinion in the relevant profession or trade.' (referring to Rogers v Whitaker at 487).

See also, 

• Walter Fregon Pty Ltd v Sewell (Supreme Court of Victoria, Unreported, No 5126 of 1991, 22-24, 27-30 November, 1 and 4-5 December 1995, 20 November 1996, Coldrey J) BC9605901, at 33-34.

• "It is a well established principle of the general law that a registered  veterinary  surgeon has a duty to animal patients, to his profession and to the community at large and in particular to the owners of animals who place their animals in his care to practice his profession with competence and diligence": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Inquiry 2: Gypsy - Findings) [2003] NSWADT 96, [86]; Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Inquiry 4: 'Total Eclipse' - Findings) [2002] NSWADT 284, [27]. 

• Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, 163, referred to in Ho Kam Seong v Arab Malaysian Securities Sdn Bhd [2000] 6 MLJ 641, 667 (Faiza Tamby Chik J): "This duty to exercise reasonable care and skill is applicable to everyone practising a calling involving personal skill, such as: accountant and auditors, agents, architects, engineers and surveyors, auctioneers, barristers (when engaged on non-litigious matters), dentists, directors of companies, divers, nurses, patent agents, physicians and surgeons, solicitors, stockbrokers, insurance brokers, valuers and veterinary practitioners".

The approach to professional liability cases involving veterinarians is similar to those pertaining to medical and health professionals. For example, see Dernee v Zondagh [2023] NSWDC 192, [2]-[3] (Judge Levy, SC): "[2] The substantive proceedings are brought by the plaintiff, Anita Dernee, the owner of two now deceased dressage horses, against the defendant, Matthew Zondagh, an equine veterinarian, claiming compensatory damages for alleged negligent breach of duty of care, and for alleged breach of contract, in respect of the defendant’s injection treatment and post-injection management of the plaintiff’s horses, claiming that such alleged breaches caused the death of those horses. [3] The defendant has denied he was negligent and he has denied the alleged breach of contract. He has pleaded a statutory defence relying on s 5O of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) (“CL Act”) claiming that in his treatment of the plaintiff’s horses, he had acted in a way that was widely accepted by peer professional opinion and competent professional practice. If that sheltering defence is established, it would operate as a complete answer to the plaintiff’s claim." 

The duty of care may, however, be attenuated in part, by contract or upon the content of the retainer, and the apparent sophistication of the client (though, query informed consent, failure to warn/advice issues).

[B] Standard of Care (Breach of Duty of Care)

NSW: Statutory Defence for "Professionals": Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5O: "5O Standard of care for professionals (1) A person practising a profession (a professional) does not incur a liability in negligence arising from the provision of a professional service if it is established that the professional acted in a manner that (at the time the service was provided) was widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion as competent professional practice. (2) However, peer professional opinion cannot be relied on for the purposes of this section if the court considers that the opinion is irrational. (3) The fact that there are differing peer professional opinions widely accepted in Australia concerning a matter does not prevent any one or more (or all) of those opinions being relied on for the purposes of this section. (4) Peer professional opinion does not have to be universally accepted to be considered widely accepted."

WA: note, however, that the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) (WA Act), in ss 5PA and 5PB, provides with respect to professional negligence in like manner to ss 5O and 5P of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (NSW Act) but confined to persons defined in s 5PA as a “health professional”. Section 5PA defines “health professional” inclusively by reference to a range of medical dental chiropractic and like disciplines coupled with a catchall pertaining to “any other discipline or profession practising in the health area which applies a body of learning”. Despite the absence of a statutory defence for veterinarians, it is likely that a breach of duty of care of a veterinarian is to be assessed with reference to widely accepted by peer professional opinion and competent professional practice. (for the standard of competence expected of a veterinarian (or veterinary surgeon), see Veterinary Practice Act 2021 (WA) s 78: "in connection with the practice of veterinary medicine in a manner, ... standard of competence, diligence and safety that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent veterinarian or veterinary nurse"; s 79: "reasonable standard of competence, diligence and safety")

A finding of breach of professional standards under the professional standards legislation, eg, Veterinary Practice Act 2021 or equivalent, may include a finding of  incompentence or negligence: See: Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA v Mooney [2009] SADC 62 (Tilmouth J): "[37] These definitions incorporate the common law test of unprofessional conduct defined in Re R A Practitioner referred to above. Such conduct is not limited to incompetence or negligence ... [38] The test of improprietary is an objective one, consisting “in the breach of the standards of conduct that would be expected of a person in the position of [the veterinary surgeon] by reasonable persons with knowledge of the duties, powers and authority of the position and the circumstances of the case”: R v Byrnes & Hopwood. 38. [39] Put another way, what was done by Dr Mooney, could only be objectively regarded as “disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional brethren of good repute and competency”: In Re (A Practitioner of the Supreme Court)".

Note: Professional Misconduct under professional standards legislation is distinct from the standard of care in negligence. "[mere negligence] must ... be attended by elements rendering the conduct such as reasonably to be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by veterinary surgeons of good repute and competency. A negligent professional action which might, in its inception, fall short of meeting this test could well, when compounded by subsequent conduct, be capable of being placed in the disgraceful category.": Kalil v Bray [1977] 1 NSWLR 256, 263 (Street CJ, NSWCA); See also, in New Zealand, Collie v Nursing Council of New Zealand (High Court, WN AP300/99, 5 September 2000 Gendall J) at [21], defined negligence sufficient to constitute professional misconduct as "behaviour which falls seriously short of that which is to be considered acceptable and not mere inadvertent error, oversight or, for that matter, carelessness" (quoted in Knight v Veterinary Council of New Zealand [2009] NZHC 575, [122]. 

Matter of Expert Opinion: 

• "'It is not possible to lay down a standard of professional conduct in other than general terms. Whether a departure from professional standards in a particular case constitutes misconduct in a professional respect is basically determined by peer judgment, i.e. the judgment of practitioners of good repute and competence and standing in the profession": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Inquiry 2: Gypsy - Findings) [2003] NSWADT 96, [86]. 

• "39 In assessing guilt and the gravity of any departure from proper professional standards, there remains always the need to ensure that  veterinarians  of appropriate expertise give evidence. The  veterinary  member of the Tribunal has a special role to play in evaluating that evidence, as well as the explanations given by the practitioner for the conduct under notice: Kalil v Bray [1977] 1 NSWLR 256.": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Inquiry 4: 'Total Eclipse' - Findings) [2002] NSWADT 284, [27].

• "An honest difference of opinion between veterinary surgeons as to the interpretation of the spinal x-rays would not, of itself, be negligence.": Knowles v Halley t/as Byrne and Halley Veterinary Surgeons [2019] IEHC 430, [17] <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2019/H430.html>. 

• Malaysia: Matter of expert opinion - veterinary examination - matter arose in defamation proceedings: "If the Plaintiffs were negligent or reckless or incompetent which caused his dog to die, the Defendant should have sued the Plaintiffs as soon as possible but he did not. He immediately took the dog away, asked for a report from the 1st Plaintiff and borrowed an x-ray box to try to find faults with the 1st Defendant. He did not request for any post mortem to find out the cause of death, whether there was any negligence on the part of the 1st Plaintiff and whether the 1st Plaintiff caused the death of his dog. He did not produce any medical or any report to substantiate his complaints against the Plaintiffs that they were careless, negligent, reckless, incompetent or unprofessional. Instead the Defendant secretly recorded his conversations with the 1st Plaintiff and made a series of complaints against the 1st Plaintiff spanning a time frame of about one and one-half years through Facebook, a petition with signatures campaign, complaints to MVC, JPH and the Biro, have a politician raised it as an issue and called in the reporters from the media to publicise his complaints. Although he may be a pet lover, his actions were not those of a reasonable or objective person. If the 1st Plaintiff was negligent in causing the death of his dog, he should have sued the 1st Plaintiff and let due process took its course. The matter should stop there. Instead he went to great lengths in what he did which showed that he had a motive and was carrying out a very personal vindictive campaign against the 1st Plaintiff. There was malice which defeated his claim to the defence of qualified privilege.": Dr Lim Chang Wai & Anor v Chia Ah Tai [2015] MLJU 2023, [48]-[50] (Stephen Chung J, High Court Kota Kinabalu).

Example of breaches of duty of care: 

• "erroneous diagnosis or an administration of wrong treatment": Kalil v Bray [1977] 1 NSWLR 256, 263 (Street CJ, NSWCA). 

• incorrect diagnoses, incorrect interpretation of X-Rays in neurological examination of dog: "347. We conclude that Dr Griffiths was mistaken as to what he felt on palpation of the dog’s spine. For the reasons expressed above, we conclude that Dr Cheung was also mistaken in observing ‘a little bit’ of sideways movement in the dog’s spine. ... 348. We accept the opinion evidence that it is simply not possible that the respondent felt what he says he felt given that the X-rays show no displacement of the vertebrae, or severance of the spinal cord. ... 351. Ultimately, we find that the respondent simply did not proceed in a manner that could be expected of a competent  veterinary  practitioner when faced with this clinical picture. We conclude that Dr Griffiths misread the X-rays, was not competent in the conduct of his clinical examinations and misinterpreted his clinical findings. ... 352. In summary, the dog did not have a pubic fracture, scoliosis or severe subluxation at L6-L7. The increased density on the X-ray was not indicative of nerve damage. The dog had some pain response in the right hind limb indicating that there was in fact no permanent nerve injury or permanent crushing injuries as Dr Griffiths had concluded in his notes. 353. The diagnoses reached by Dr Griffiths were incorrect and premature. Both expert witnesses agreed that when Dr Griffiths spoke to the owners on the Sunday it was too early post injury to sensibly diagnose the actual injury or injuries and predict an outcome. The dog’s progress needed to be observed over time. 354. We find that in all the circumstances the respondent erred in reaching incorrect diagnoses as to the nature and extent of the dog’s injuries and as to the prognosis for the dog and regarding the appropriate treatment options. ... 356. We find Dr Griffiths’ conduct in this respect involved a significant departure from professional standards amounting to both incompetence and negligence.": Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Griffiths [2021] SACAT 108.

• failure to take reasonable care in administration of treatment: eg, application of strong iodine causing injury, treatment based on error in judgment, inappropriate treatment administerd (inquiry and interrogation of events; and which fell short of competent professional practice as a matter of expert opinion): Walter Fregon Pty Ltd v Sewell (Supreme Court of Victoria, Unreported, No 5126 of 1991, 22-24, 27-30 November, 1 and 4-5 December 1995, 20 November 1996, Coldrey J) BC9605901, at 34-36: "In this case Epsom was a specialty veterinary practice with its practitioners professing expertise and skill in the treatment of thoroughbred horses. The core question is whether the treatment regime prescribed by Dr Selth which, as I have found, involved the application of strong iodine into the hole of In Wonderland's near front hoof, was appropriate treatment, given the circumstances of In Wonderland's condition, or whether such treatment fell below the requisite standard of reasonable care and skill. Both Drs Hazard and Hutchins gave evidence that, against the background of their knowledge of the circumstances of this horse's condition, it was quite inappropriate to administer strong iodine through the hole in the mare's near front hoof. Dr Hazard's own observations on 17 April were in the following terms: "... I saw a piece of wadding that was soaked in dried iodine. I saw staining inside the cavity. My observations were that iodine had been in there and at that stage I was unaware of what the pedal bone was doing, but I was aware of an absence of any living tissue, by that I mean there was no exudate, there was no granulation tissue, everything was dry. In fact there was no evidence of any infection and my thoughts were that strong iodine had acted as an astringent ... that that is what had caused this lack of living tissue." (761) Dr Hazard made it quite clear that because strong iodine was a caustic substance it could cause necrosis. Dr Hutchins was adamant that it was quite inappropriate to apply strong iodine on exposed, sensitive solar corium (286) Moreover he stated in cross-examination that the placing of strong iodine in the hole in the horse's hoof, particularly on a daily basis, would have the effect of causing necrosis to the distal phalanx. (313) I do not propose to regurgitate slabs of the expert evidence to which I have already referred. On the evidence of Drs Hazard and Hutchins, which evidence I accept, in preference to that of Dr Yovich, I am quite satisfied that in directing the use of strong iodine in the manner in which I have found it was used to treat In Wonderland, Dr Selth failed to exercise the requisite standard of reasonable care and skill. Further, I am satisfied that failure was a direct cause of the mare's death. As is clear from the foregoing, my finding is that the damage to In Wonderland's hoof was occasioned by the direct application of iodine into the hole in it rather than by the absorption through the cottonwool plug in the hole of iodine which had been applied on the hoof surface around such hole. Accordingly it is not necessary for me to discuss those portions of the evidence directed to whether the application of strong iodine in the manner described to a perforated hoof constituted negligence."

• Horse mistakenly gelded by veterinary surgeon: Conners v Plozza & Traralgon Veterinary Centre P/L [1998] VSC 26.

• ?negligent misstatement as to ability to fix scarring post surgery (as scope of engagement): "The facts of this case accepted by me from the evidence thus lead to a conclusion that the relevant arrangement between the applicant and the second respondent was one of contract in which the second respondent undertook not just to carry out the procedure with due care to professional standards, but to guarantee the work would result in correction of the irritation and scarring": Wright v Coffs Rose Avenue Veterinary Hospital & Robertson (General) [2003] NSWCTTT 439.

• misdiagnosis and failure to treat (obiter), failure on causation: Russell v Heathmont Animal Hospital Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 53. (see of interest, AFCA determination on the case)

• liability arising from recommending a veterinary product to the respondent as being safe for use, without regard for its accuracy: "It seems plain that the attitude of the "company vet" could not have justified the advice which Dr Ryan was found to have given to the respondent, especially the advice that the product would be "safe to use in heifers intended as breeders in the future". On the judge's findings the product caused abnormalities in implanted heifers and Dr Ryan was unable to point to any proper basis for the advice which he gave. It is true that as was argued for the appellants, Dr Ryan's duty of care as vendor cannot be equated to that of Syntex, the Australian distributor, and it is also true that the reasons given by the judge with respect to the issue of negligence may be thought to assimilate the negligence of Dr Ryan to that of Syntex. But when one adds to the judge's findings about the side-effects of Synovex H the fact that Dr Ryan had no sufficient basis on which to assert that it was safe to use for the purpose which he knew the respondent had in mind, the finding of negligence against Dr Ryan must stand. It appears to me that Dr Ryan's position, as a veterinarian recommending a veterinary product to the respondent as being safe for use, can usefully be compared with that of a practising physician as analysed in the work by Giesen, "International Medical Malpractice Law", at p. 1154: "It is the physician's duty to . . . make an educated appraisal of information on comparison and structure of a new medicament as discussed in the scientific literature or as provided by the manufacturer". Here, on Dr Ryan's evidence, he had very little knowledge of the product and was not in a position authoritatively to recommend it as safe, or to give an opinion about the severity of likely side-effects. The outcome is that the lack of definition of the basis of the finding of negligence against Dr Ryan, in the primary judge's reasons, does not produce the result that his Honour's finding must be reversed.There remains the finding against Dr Ryan as to fitness for purpose. It is complained on behalf of Dr Ryan that there was no finding that the respondent made known to him the intended use of the product in stud cattle. The judge inferred, in the absence of any suggestion to the contrary, that Dr Ryan was aware of the nature of the respondent's business and that inference is consistent with the general tenor of Dr Ryan's evidence. It is further argued on behalf of Dr Ryan that there was no evidence of permanent damage to the heifers caused by implantation of Synovex H; but that does not appear to be of any consequence, for the losses complained of did not include any based on an allegation of permanent damage. In the result then, I conclude that the primary judge's findings with respect to liability against both appellants should be upheld.": Syntex Australia & anor v Ray Teese P/L [1996] QCA 259. 

• (dog carer, not vets) fed bones to dogs, contrary, the plaintiffs say, to their specific instructions that the dog was not to be fed bones, duty of care established. "17. ... The standard of care required by the duty is that which is reasonable in the circumstances of a reasonably competent boarding kennel owner/operator. 18. There is an array of competing factors at play. A review of the relevant Codes of Practice leaves little doubt that appropriate records must be kept, including those relating to dietary requirements and I did not understand the defendants to deny the need for such records; they having produced sample records into evidence. The fact that the records for the plaintiffs’ dogs were not produced is, as I have said above, a matter of concern. Having found (paragraph 13 above) that relevant instructions were given, I can only conclude either that those instructions were not written into the client record or, if they were, that a fresh record was opened on the second occasion without reference to the first record. Alternatively, given that the dogs remained well for the initial 2 weeks of their stay, it is reasonable to conclude they were not being fed bones in the normal course of events. Thus, it may have been a simple matter of forgetfulness. In either event, I find a breach of the relevant standard of care owed to the plaintiffs by the defendants.": Fuge v Magdalinski & Ors t/a Purrs and Paws Pet Resort [2010] NTMC 29, <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nt/NTMC/2010/29.html>.

• Clinical examination inadequate - rectal tear damage had been suffered by the mare during the rectal examination by veterinarian: "I have come to the conclusion that not only was the tear caused by the carelessness of the defendant, but his failure to notice the tear and the signs that there was a tear, were also negligent. It was described to me how through the very thin material of the glove, and indeed looking at and feeling the glove myself I can well understand, that a veterinarian with his hand inside the rectum of a horse would be able to feel the giving of the wall when the tear occurred. It is clear that had the defendant noticed the tear which I have found did take place on Tuesday 17 May, as he was conducting his examination, or immediately after he had concluded it, the chances of the horse have been greatly enhanced. As it was, surviving would by the time Mr Douglas saw the horse on the Friday morning, he came to the conclusion it was too late to try anything in the nature of a surgical procedure to save it.": Bishop v Roberts (Auckland, High Court of New Zealand, No. A183/84, 24 March 1988, Hillyer J) at page 13 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/cases/NZHC/1988/933.pdf>. 

• (person treating horse, but not a vet) "The respondent undertook to treat a horse, and in the course of his treatment he inserted a catheter into the animal's urethra. The catheter broke, and the horse was returned to its owner with the broken pieces left in the urethra. The evidence did not shew how long after the breaking the horse was in the custody of the respondent. The respondent did not tell the owner that fragments of the catheter had been left in the urethra. More than one month after the breaking of the catheter an information was laid against the appellant for ill-treating the horse by unreasonably causing it unnecessary pain ... There was a duty upon the respondent to take rare in relation to what he was doing to the animal, and while he might not be guilty of negligence in inserting or breaking the catheter he would certainly be guilty of negligence if,  having broken it, he omitted to do what a reasonable man would have done with regard to the removal of the pieces. A reasonable man (the horse passing from his control would, at least, have told the owner of the condition in which, through his art, the horse was. It was his duty to have done this within a reasonable time a duty owed not merely to the owner, but to the State also" ... "The Special Magistrate was apparently of the opinion that the treatment by the respondent had been callous as well as negligent, and that his conduct had caused the animal unnecessary pain, more or less continuously, from the time when the horse was returned to its owner until the broken parts were finally discovered and removed. If these were his conclusions from the evidence I am prepared to accept them..": Martin v Carpenter [1925] SR (SA) 421, 424 (Poole ACJ), 428-9 (Napier J) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAStRp/1925/53.pdf>.

• (person treating horse, not vet): "The respondents were naïve in their conduct. The practice was not undertaken as it would have been by a veterinarian. The relevant veterinary procedure is far more involved than the procedure undertaken by Mr Phillips.": Harness Racing Victoria v Phillips (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 1071.

•  "Callow v. Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411. In that case a butcher was convicted of exposing unsound meat for sale. He had relied on a certificate given by a veterinary surgeon that the meat was sound and healthy. The veterinary surgeon had been guilty of negligence in examining the carcase and giving the certificate. It was held that the fact that he had been negligent, and that the negligence had caused the exposure of the unsound meat for sale, was not sufficient to justify his conviction for aiding and abetting the exposing of the unsound meat for sale. (Perhaps he should more properly have been charged with counselling or procuring the commission of the offence, but the decision did not turn on that point.)"(obiter): Giorgianni v R [1985] HCA 29; (1985) 156 CLR 473, [11] (Gibbs CJ).

• "[mistake] in calculating the dose of Toltrazuril (Baycox) which she gave to a French Bulldog which had the potential to be lethal. GLM agreed with the description of her being negligent": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v GLM [2022] QCAT 337, [76]. <https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qcat/2022/337>.

•  finding that defendant is liable to plaintiffs – finding that veterinary inspector hastily and negligently put down a number of cattle which need not be put down: "699 By putting down animals that did not need to be put down and depriving the owners, at least one of whom was known to be arriving on the following day, of the opportunity of feeding, caring for and saving the animals, the RSPCA acted negligently. It breached the duty of care which it owed to the plaintiffs. Nicholls acted hastily and negligently. For the moment, I leave to one side the issue of whether the RSPCA was also negligent by reason of employing Nicholls in the position of an inspector, failing to supervise him adequately or at all, and the like. ...759 I find that the plaintiffs have established negligence on the part of the RSPCA. Nicholls hastily and negligently put down 131 animals. The case can now progress to the assessment of damages. I shall discuss with the parties how this should be done.": Holdswoeth v RSPCA [2014] VCC 1186.

• (breeder): 'veterinary assistance when necessary": "does not necessarily mean taking of the animals to the vet. In the first instance a telephone call could have been made to a vet, perhaps photograph could have been sent to the vet. ... As soon as the injured pups were discovered veterinary assistance became necessary. This is especially so when, despite all his experience he had no means with assisting the pups through pain relief. One or two hours may seem a relatively short period of time, but to a terribly injured and dying pup, it is the equivalent of a lifetime": See Greyhound Welfare and Integrity Commission v Verhagen [2023] NSWSC 1140, [13], [22] (Elkiam AJ).

• Blood spinning, withdrawing, manipulating and reinfusing autologous blood products or blood cells into a horse and giving false or misleading information at an investigation: Harness Racing Victoria v Phillips (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 1071.

• (UK) Improper treatment/ no proper or identified basis or advantage for treatment/contra-indicated: "application of such a long, tight and restrictive bandage was completely inappropriate and contra-indicated for the initial treatment of an infection causing rapidly developing localised swelling and that this should have been plain to any equine vet acting with reasonable care and skill on the basis of first principles", " negligently fixed on a traumatic cause of lameness and failed to review that decision upon receipt of the blood results", "negligently failed to reach a primary or differential diagnosis of a bacterial infection of the hock", "negligent delay of approximately 38 hours in the administration of antibiotics", "negligent failure by Dr Portal to take any observations (temperature, heart and respiratory rate) on any of her visits": J & J Franks Ltd v Shotter & Anor [2023] EWHC 1080 (KB) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/1080.html>. 

• (UK) Improper treatment and administration of cortico-steroid medication -  "there was no clinical justification for the treatment that Msr. Grandiere actually administered to Anna on 18th May 2001, that his treatment was therefore in breach of the duty of care that he owed to Mrs McGarel-Groves and was negligent (see the matters agreed by the experts for the purposes of the preliminary issue quoted in paragraph 62 above and see also the written closing submissions of counsel for each of the parties). It was also common ground that Mrs McGarel-Groves should have been warned of the risk of laminitis if it was proposed to administer any such treatment to Anna" - damages awarded: agreed value by the parties in the sum of £350,000: Glyn (t/as Priors Farm Equine Veterinary Surgery) v McGarel-Groves & Ors [2005] EWHC 1629 (QB) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1629.html>. Affd' on appeal, where further discussion of scope of vet's retainer discussed "[74] It is less likely that written retainers will be found between vets and clients. On the other hand, Mr Glyn's invoice represents in its way the best contemporaneous evidence of his understanding of the scope of his responsibilities that day, and in my judgment the judge below was right to be impressed by it. The RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct 2000 states, inter alia, that it is the responsibility of vets to "maintain clear, accurate and comprehensive case records and accounts", to "co-operate with colleagues and other health professionals when appropriate" and to "liaise with colleagues where more than one veterinary surgeon is involved": Glyn v McGarel-Groves [2006] EWCA Civ 998 <https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/998.html>. 

• (UK) dispute over what a pre-purchase examination certificate should have stated or included (expert evidence showed standard of care not breached): Blass v Randall [2008] EWHC 1007 (QB) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1007.html>. 

• (NZ) improper treatment; should not have been sent home; insufficient antibiotic; "poor diagnostics; b. there were no bloods or diagnostic tests run on Friday or over the weekend…; c. The radiographs are of poor quality and there is no DV view, only a lateral view. It is dangerous to make a definitive clinical judgment based on only one view …; d. TX mentions giving pain relief, but he did not identify what type, how this was provided, and when. Additionally, there are no clinical record or invoice of any pain medications being administered over CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 6 the weekend. If there was a suspicion of pancreatitis, this would fall short of accepted clinical standards; e. the only drug in the clinical record is Noroclav. It also appears from the invoice Cerenia was administered, neither of these are appropriate as pain relief; f. there is no record of how much fluid the dog had received each day. From the owner’s account the drip appears to have blocked several times. No IV pump was used over the weekend, even though one was available. An IV pump was used from Monday; and g. TX did not consider other possible differential diagnoses or the possibility of delayed gastric emptying when the owner insisted that gorging was not possible. The records state that on admission Brownie had been off colour with a diarrhoea for three days and was now not eating." (see discussion in case at [9]-[25]): UI v DW Ltd [2021] NZDT 1528 (8 September 2021) <https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/UI-v-DW-Ltd-2021-NZDT-1528-8-September-2021.pdf>.  

• (not Vet Neg, but professional liability) Author of incorrect Pre-purchase report - negligence: Cate Doosey v Nigel Walsh & Complete Building Inspection Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 8.

• (Singapore): claim failed on causation - lack of contradicting expert evidence: "Although Supreme Gold carried injuries when it was examined by Dr Lenz and Dr Murdoch, there was no link between the injuries and the treatment it received at the defendants’ stables.  There was no evidence that the injuries were the result of maltreatment, or that they could be avoided or arrested if the horse had received proper treatment in the defendants’ stables. ... No evidence was led to substantiate the assertion that the horse should have been given total rest for three to four months and be re-assessed by a veterinary surgeon before training is resumed.  The plaintiffs did not call anyone knowledgeable in the treatment or training of horses to say that the horse should have been rested for at least three months.  The only reference to a three to four month rest period was made by Gary Desker when he informed Malcolm Thwaites that two other horses owned by the plaintiffs recovered fully after being rested for those periods. Likewise, the plaintiffs did not produce anything to contradict Malcolm Thwaites’ evidence that Classic Sport was rested for four weeks, and no informed opinion was offered that four weeks’ rest was inappropriate or inadequate": Bernard Desker Gary and Others v Thwaites Racing Pte Ltd and Another [2003] SGHC 175 (Kan Ting Chiu J) <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2003_SGHC_175>. 

• (Singapore): trespass to animal - injection ofanabolic steroids: "31     In this respect, I should state that although the injection was administered by a vet in the clinic, it was clear from the evidence that the practice of the vets at the Singapore Turf Club (the “Turf Club”) was to administer such injections at the trainer’s request. The plaintiff’s expert witness, Dr Russell Glenn Robertson-Smith, a vet from Australia, explained the uses of anabolic steroids as follows: It’s a – a drug which certainly helps them to eat, it improves their appetite. It also, er, causes, them --- the anabolic part of the drug causes them to lay their muscle, so if we have a horse with a soft tissue injury such as a tearing of the muscle, or a long-term lameness where the horse has lost musculature, we might advise that an anabolic steroid would be an appropriate treatment in those circumstances to ensure the horse eats well, and that there is some recovery to the soft tissue. Dr Robertson-Smith being from Australia was not familiar with the practice followed in Singapore but evidence of this was given by a vet at the Turf Club, Dr Curry Keoughan, who also looked after K&K when it was taken over by Mr Koh. Dr Keoughan testified: If a trainer requests a drug, we always examine the horse to an extent to determine whether it would be safe to administer that drug. It’s not always the same as saying I agree that I would use SA. I would probably never choose to recommend SA to any horse but that doesn’t mean it’s not an acceptable viable treatment and the trainer does have quite a valuable input on the treatment of the horses. So I believe I might be deemed confusing again but Dr TS(?) would have examined the horse and felt it safe to give the drug. But that doesn’t mean he would have necessarily come up with his own idea to treat the horse with the drug. The above evidence was consistent with that given by Dr Koos van den Berg, the head veterinarian at the Turf Club at the material time. Dr van den Berg stated that in 2007, anabolic steroids were favoured by trainers to promote the appetite of a horse and very often a trainer would request that this medication be administered. Dr van den Berg explained that if a horse had a poor appetite this was a condition that was difficult for a vet to verify from examination so what happened was that the anabolic steroid would be administered on the trainer’s request. If a trainer asked for the injection, the vet would make sure that the trainer was aware of the withdrawal time and thereafter would administer the drug but the vet would not need to examine the horse before doing so. The defendant himself straightforwardly testified that he had requested that the steroid injection be administered. He considered the request justified on the basis that he was doing the best he could to ensure the welfare of the horse. 32     The defendant maintained throughout that what he did was done in the best interests of the plaintiff and the horse and that there was nothing malicious or wrongful in his decision to treat K&K with an anabolic steroid. These arguments even if accepted in full do not afford the defendant a defence to the claim of trespass. As pointed out above, an action in trespass to goods requires unpermitted contact or wrongful interference. There is nothing inconsistent between having a duty to care for the horse and having a duty not to wrongfully interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the horse. The scopes of those duties are distinct: any act that falls within the duty of care does not fall within the scope of wrongful interference. However, that is not to say that the boundaries of those duties do not shift according to the circumstances. Once the defendant was told that his services were terminated and that K&K was to be transferred pending payment in cash (which was being arranged for immediately), the defendant was under a duty not to do anything to the horse that would deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of the horse, subject to, perhaps, a duty to treat the horse due to reasons of urgency or pressing need but even then, given that the plaintiff was in the defendant’s office and could be consulted immediately on any decision to be taken in respect of the horse, the scope of the defendant’s discretion in relation to K&K was extremely small. 33     Second, his best intentions and lack of malice are not a defence to an action in trespass. That is clear from the passage from Clerk and Lindsell cited at [23] above and also in the passage at [25-11] of Bullen & Leake & Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings (Vol 1, London Sweet & Maxwell) which states that “deliberate conduct (in the erroneous belief held by the defendant that he was acting lawfully) does not amount to a defence if the act otherwise amounts to trespass”. Finally, although the SA injection caused no physical injury to the horse, it did result in a withholding period of over 40 days, a period during which the horse could not have been entered for any race. 34     Having already been told that his services were terminated, the defendant proceeded to have K&K injected with the anabolic steroid which on all the evidence was an optional treatment and not occasioned by any urgency or emergency. At that time, it would have still been open to the defendant to have asked for the consent of the plaintiff or Mr Koh before doing so. The defendant failed to give any explanation whatsoever as to why he did not attempt to take either course before administering the SA injection despite knowing full well what the consequence of the treatment was. The defendant also could not show that there was an urgent need to administer the SA injection. Despite the defendant’s pleas of innocence, it has been established that there was unpermitted contact and wrongful interference with the horse. ... 39     Additionally, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to show that the defendant had failed to maintain and care for the health and fitness of K&K. As noted above, Dr van den Berg had testified that the anabolic steroid treatment was used to stimulate the appetite of horses and was often given upon a trainer’s request. The plaintiff therefore cannot show that the defendant failed to maintain or care for the health of K&K by administering the injection. None of the three vets who testified said that the defendant’s treatment was inappropriate for treating the horse and Dr Keoughan also agreed that the SA injection was not harmful to the horse. Therefore, any allegation that the defendant breached his contractual duty to maintain or care for the health of K&K must fail. ... 60     I have found that the defendant committed trespass on K&K. Accordingly, there must be judgment for the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has failed to prove that he suffered any real loss by reason of the trespass, I award him nominal damages of $100. The plaintiff should not have brought this action since no real damage was sustained. Therefore the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs of defending the action and the costs of the counterclaim to which he had no real defence": Wang Sam Lin v Burridge Steven Harold (trading as Steven Burridge Racing Stables) [2009] SGHC 252 (Judith Prakash J) <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2009_SGHC_252>. 

[C] Causation:

• Need to prove causation - see discussion of proving causation in veterinary negligence (esp. expert evidence of medical causes): Abbott v Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1390, [205]-[299], [439]-[476] (Rares J).

• (Pet minder) Negligence: "The essence of Mr Angel’s claim is that he provided instructions to Ms Buckland as to what foods Sooty was to eat and she provided Sooty with foods outside that list. Mr Angel claims Sooty’s illness was caused by Ms Buckland feeding Sooty those other foods. ... " - claim failed on causation - dog with history of pre-existing illness: Angel v Buckland (Civil Claims) [2023] VCAT 1263. 

[D] Loss and Damage:

Paucity of cases dealing with quantification of losses and damages: 

• Expert Valuation: Walter Fregon Pty Ltd v Sewell (Supreme Court of Victoria, Unreported, No 5126 of 1991, 22-24, 27-30 November, 1 and 4-5 December 1995, 20 November 1996, Coldrey J) BC9605901, at 37-40. 

• Party/Party Costs allowed: Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Griffiths [2022] SACAT 22.

• Relief from the financial consequences of the legal and moral responsibilities imposed on the owner (obiter): "If a veterinary surgeon conducts the sterilisation of a dog negligently, and the dog's owner later seeks to recover the costs of feeding the puppies, no doubt it can be said that compensation is not sought for the puppies, but for relief from the financial consequences of the legal and moral responsibilities which their arrival imposed on the owner": Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38; 215 CLR 1[355] (Heydon J).

• Horse mistakenly gelded by veterinary surgeon, damages awarded for cost of replacement horse less present value of the gelding: Conners v Plozza & Traralgon Veterinary Centre P/L [1998] VSC 26.

• refund for a veterinary procedure together with subsequent pharmaceutical costs (total failure of consideration: "The facts of this case accepted by me from the evidence thus lead to a conclusion that the relevant arrangement between the applicant and the second respondent was one of contract in which the second respondent undertook not just to carry out the procedure with due care to professional standards, but to guarantee the work would result in correction of the irritation and scarring. I have to find therefore that as the procedure was unsuccessful, there was total failure of consideration. A refund of the fee charged is the appropriate remedy together with incidental costs of medication ($50) which I find have been reasonably incurred since the time of the second respondent’s operation": Wright v Coffs Rose Avenue Veterinary Hospital & Robertson (General) [2003] NSWCTTT 439.

• Mare in foal - "An unborn animal, while it remains in utero, has no independent existence as a chattel ... Held, that the true measure of damages was for the mare in foal and not for the mare and foal separately, and, therefore, that there must be a new trial." (also comments on sufficiency of evidence of negligence): Bell v Thompson [1934] NSWStRp 34; (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 431 (Jordan CJ, Halse Rogers and Street JJ) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWStRp/1934/34.html>.

• (bailee) Loss of horse, loss of her foal, loss of chance of foal later, special damages (vet costs): Cowper & Anor JG v Goldner P/L [1986] SASC 9044 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/1986/9044.html>.

• Loss of use of chattel: Rider v Pix [2019] QCA 182, [34]-[35] (Flanagan J, with whom Sofronoff P and Morrison JA agreed).

• See general principles on damages and causation in Syntex Australia & anor v Ray Teese P/L [1996] QCA 259. 

• Sale price of horse: Bishop v Roberts (Auckland, High Court of New Zealand, No. A183/84, 24 March 1988, Hillyer J) at page 13 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/cases/NZHC/1988/933.pdf>. 

• Holdsworth & Ellison v RSPCA [2015] VCC 653.

• Damages for value of horse, loss of opportunity to earn, horse as income producing asset (claim failed for want of evidence): Abbott v Zoetis Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1390, [477]-[488] (Rares J). [(curiously, at [488]: "I'm not satisfied, ... suffered ant compensable loss of opportunity from Quinn's death. All tey proved was that he would have reduced the future losses of a loss-making business that has now ceased to operate. That is not compensable because from an economic perspective, the death save Dellifay from continuin to make losses. There is no other evidence enabling a valuation of Quinn as an income producing asset".

• Agreed value: Glyn (t/as Priors Farm Equine Veterinary Surgery) v McGarel-Groves & Ors [2005] EWHC 1629 (QB) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1629.html>.

• all natural and direct consequences of wrongful act (tort), including hire of horse to replace injured mare, damages to extent of cost of washing, dressing, and feeding mare, veterinary surgeon's fees, and cosrs of removing and destroying animal: Gardner v R [1933] NZLR 730 (Reed J). 

• "It is at this point that, as it seems to me, the application of general principle becomes difficult. It becomes difficult because the consequence of the negligence is the birth of a human being and because assessments about the value or the burden of a particular human life are impossible. These difficulties have to be grappled with, and I will come back to them, but before doing so I want to consider how the damages issue would look if analogous professional negligence had occurred in a context that did not involve these difficulties. Suppose the owner of a two year old colt decided to have the colt gelded and engaged a veterinary surgeon (a vet) to carry out the operation. The vet operates on the colt and advises the owner that the operation has been successful. In the belief that that is so the owner allows the gelding, as he believes the colt to have become, to graze in a paddock with some mares. But the operation has been negligently performed, the colt succeeds in getting one of the mares in foal, the condition of the mare is not discovered until it is too late to do anything about it and in due time the mare gives birth to a healthy foal. The mare is not damaged by the experience but the owner sues the vet for damages. Negligence is not in issue. For what damages would the vet be liable? An account of detriment and benefit would need to be drawn up. Veterinary costs occasioned by the mare's unwanted pregnancy and the birth of the foal would be recoverable. But what else? Special circumstances might, subject to remoteness rules, justify special claims; but leave special claims aside. What about the costs of rearing the foal to maturity? The proposition that the defendant vet would be liable for such costs seems absurd. It is instructive to ask oneself why that is so. It is absurd, in my opinion, because the owner of the foal does not have to keep it. Its unexpected and originally unwanted arrival would present him with a number of choices. He could have the foal destroyed as soon as it was born. But this would be an unlikely choice for the foal would be likely to have some value and it would cost very little to leave it with its dam until it could be weaned. Or the owner could decide to keep the foal until it could be weaned and then to sell it. Or he could decide to keep it until, as a yearling or a two year old, it had reached a little more maturity and then sell it. Or he could try and add value to it by breaking it in, schooling it and then selling it. Or he could keep it for his own use. Each of these choices, bar the first, would have involved the owner in some expense in rearing the foal. But the expense would be the result of his choice to keep the foal. Moreover, the expense of rearing the foal would have to be set against the value of the foal. The owner could not claim as damages reimbursement of the expenses without bringing into account the benefit. The inability of the owner of the unwanted foal to claim from the negligent vet the cost of rearing the foal seems to me to raise no particular difficulty or issue of principle." Rees (Respondent) v Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust (Appellants) [2003] UKHL 52, [134]-[135] (Lord Scott of Foscote).

• Costs of Repair / Rehabilitation / Treatment: Beaumont v Cahir [2004] ACTSC 97. "Beaumont v Cahir (supra) involved an appeal from a magistrate who had held that the proper measure of damages for a badly injured horse, in the circumstances of that case, was the cost of treatment to restore the horse to a sound condition rather than the replacement cost of another horse.  In that case, the cost of treatment of the horse vastly exceeded the replacement cost.  The magistrate had awarded damages on the basis of the cost of treatment and the defendant appealed.  In Beaumont v Cahir, Cooper J said, at [32]: The value of the chattel in the sense of what the owner would have received for it if it was sold, in an available market, if one existed on the date on which it was damaged, is irrelevant.  The market value is the cost of obtaining a replacement chattel having the same or substantially the same characteristics of the chattel damaged if there exists a market in which such a substitute could be obtained:  Darbishire v Warran [1963] 1 WLR 1067 (CA) at 1074, 1078; Jansen v Dewhurst [1969] VR 421 at 427; Hoad v Scone Motors Pty Ltd [1977] 1 NSWLR 88 at 99 – 100; Belz v Oslob Pty Ltd [1989] BC 8901306 (NSWCA) at 4 – 5.  What is relevant is the use to which the chattel was put before it was injured, and what use it is intended to be put in the future, as this is material for determining what the measure of damages should be:  Hoad v Scone Motors Pty Ltd at 100.  There was no onus on the respondent to prove whether or not she could have obtained a replacement horse which satisfied her personal requirements for a horse for dressage competition, and if one was available, the cost of it.  The respondent was required to prove that the moneys she expended were a direct consequence of the appellant’s tortious conduct and that it was reasonable to expend such moneys": Neville Kingsbury-Carr v Glenn William Kiliman [2007] ACTSC 36, [11] (Gray J). 

• Malaysia: 

> Dog killed by alleged negligence of veterinary officers - suit failed - but court assessed damages at RM10,000 general damages, RM10,000 exemplary damages: "[56] Jika gantirugi didalam kes ini dibenarkan ianya akan dibenarkan seperti berikut: Gantirugi Am: RM10,000 Gantirugi teruk: tidak dibenarkan Gantirugi teladan: RM 10,000": Chendeladevan A/L Kuppusamy v Majlis Bandaraya Pulau Pinang [2023] MLJU 694, [56] (Sharmila Abdul Samad HMS, Sessions Court Georgetown).

• See also, Ida Lim, 'Dog owner gets to continue negligence lawsuit against Penang council over pet’s death' (Yahoo News, 30 September 2020) <https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/dog-owner-gets-continue-negligence-071833790.html>. 

> "The facts of this case are rather unique and best be set out at the beginning of this judgement. It revolves around a female poodle named Rozie. As was common with other dogs of Rozie’s breed, Rozie was sent by the plaintiff for regular grooming at the defendant’s premises at 19A, Taman Ipoh Selatan, 31000, Ipoh Perak (the premises). This was where the defendant provided professional animal grooming services under the business name known as Furry Pets Enterprise. The plaintiff alleges that it was one of these visits to Furry Pets that Rozie was impregnated by another canine. The plaintiff alleges that this was due to the defendant’s negligence. In the course of time Rozie gave birth to a litter of six puppies. The plaintiff commenced legal proceedings by filing a Writ and Statement of Claim on 2.12.2016. In her action the plaintiff claimed that due to the defendant’s negligence Rozie had endured pain and suffering. It was also contended that the plaintiff herself suffered mental anguish and damage because of Rozie’s impregnation and subsequent delivery. The plaintiff also claimed for the cost of having to care and maintain the six puppies. ... The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant in the sum of RM200,000.00. The Writ and Statement of Claim were duly served on the defendant. Soon after the defendant filed their Statement of Defence which was dated 27.3.2017. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claim that they were negligent. The defendant pleaded that they took adequate steps to ensure that Rozie was confined and kept separate from other canines during the grooming. The canines were separated by their sex. Rozie was kept alone for a short while in a cage before being collected by the plaintiff. This was to prevent the spread of any infection or anything untoward happening. Finally, the defendant asserted that Rozie was not impregnated whilst on the premises. ... In this present case the damages demanded by the plaintiff are in the nature of unliquidated damages. The damages for supposed pain and suffering of the canine Rozie, the supposed mental anguish felt by the plaintiff as well as the cost of maintaining the 6 puppies cannot be ascertained or determined by a mere matter of arithmetic. The kind of damages claimed necessitates investigation beyond mere calculation. ... In my view the nature of damages sort after by the plaintiff in this case would be those “not capable of exact calculation”: Law Chin Hui (t/a Furry Pet Enterprise) v Lee Su May [2018] MLJU 610 (Anselm Charles JC, High Court Ipoh).

• Singapore: Road traffic accident - Tort of Negligence - dogs killed (appeal decision - was remitted to magistrate - finding of trial judge undisturbed): "2 According to the applicant, Maximus was a large dog weighing 50kg, with a golden-brown coat and a fluffy mane. He was adopted by the applicant’s family when they were working in Hong Kong, and the applicant became Maximus’s registered owner. 3 In the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court below, the applicant claimed for the costs of acquiring a replacement dog and for cremation expenses of Maximus. The DJ gave judgment on 8 February 2021, and held that as a dog is a chattel, and the personal property of their owners, only the market value of the dog was to be awarded, as opposed to the dog’s actual value according to the owner. The applicant’s oral evidence indicated that she was seeking compensation for pain and suffering caused to her family by Maximus’s death, but the DJ held that there would not be any award for the emotional suffering of the owner due to the death or injury of the dog, or for the loss of companionship from the dog. The DJ said that since the applicant would not replace both dogs as they were family pets, the court was not able to award replacement costs for both dogs, which, in the DJ’s view, referred to the cost of purchasing a replacement dog plus other related costs such as the cost of immunisation, neutering the dog and dog training. Instead, the court would award damages based on the market value of the dog prior to the accident. 4 The DJ accepted that the cost of importing a 4-year-old Tibetan Mastiff from Hong Kong (as there was no known local breeder) was $8,000, and accepted the respondent’s submission that the market value of Maximus was $2,700, taking into account “depreciation discount” as Maximus was 4 years old at the time of the accident. The DJ thus awarded the sum of $2,700 for the death of Maximus. Since the respondent bore 90% liability for Maximus’s death (and Ruby’s injuries) by way of an interlocutory judgment entered on 7 December 2020, this amounted to the final sum of $2,430 for Maximus’s death. However, the DJ made no award as to the cost of cremation expenses of Maximus amounting to $680 as, in her view, there was no legal basis for such an order, unlike funeral expenses for humans under Section 10(3)(c) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed). ... 18 I therefore leave the questions of extension of time and leave to appeal for decision by the Magistrate’s Court, and will not express any views on the merits of the case.": Walker Helen Debra v Soh Poh Geok [2021] SGHC 113 (Choo Han Teck J) <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGHC_113>. 

> See also, 'Woman seeks court approval for appeal over damages for dog's death' (The New Paper, 14 May 2021) <https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/woman-seeks-court-approval-appeal-over-damages-dogs-death>. 

> See also, Selina Lum, 'Woman seeks court nod for appeal over damages for dog's death' (The Straits Times, 13 May 2021) <https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/woman-seeks-court-nod-for-appeal-over-damages-for-dogs-death>. 

• **Alexandra Whittaker and Meg Vine, 'The Price of a Four-Legged Friend: Non-Economic Damage Award in Australian Pet Litigation' (2016) 24(2) Tort Law Review 99-123 <https://rune.une.edu.au/web/handle/1959.11/20237>. here. (see general principles discussed therein)

[E] Conduct that falls short of standard of competence:

Conduct falling short of standard of competence (note, per Kalil v Bray, this distinct from negligence but query if the standard is the same or pari materia and if malpractice caused injury; see eg, position in section 22F of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 (Qld), where "Section 22F of the Act provides for the ways a veterinary surgeon may engage in misconduct in a professional respect, without limiting them. These include ... (f) is negligent or incompetent in the practice of his or her profession"; also note: Absent negligence there is not a duty of care not to act unlawfully provided that the unlawful act was not knowingly or maliciously done: Mengel v Northern Territory (Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Unreported, No. 688 of 1989, Asche CJ) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nt/NTSC/1992/124.pdf>). 

"a registered veterinary surgeon engages in unprofessional conduct if he or she falls substantially short of the standards of professional conduct that could reasonably be expected to be observed by members of the veterinary profession of good repute and competency. The section reflects one of the limbs of the common law test for unprofessional conduct in the legal profession, as usefully summarised in Kyle v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [1999] WASCA 115 ; (1999) 21 WAR 56, at [61].": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Western Australia and Alexander [2014] WASAT 105. 

Examples:

• "repeated failure of veterinary surgeon locum to detect unborn puppies in Rottweiler female dog producing first litter — dog subjected to prolonged pain over seven days before being put down — autopsy discloses septicaemia and peritonitis" ... "Although the case was hard-fought before the Tribunal, it was not (and could not be) contested in this Court as to the factual findings. Upon those findings, it is clear that there were serious deficiencies in the performance by Dr Burton of his several clinical examinations of the dog; of the X-rays he took and of the treatment. As the Tribunal observed, it was not difficult to accept the evidence of the owners and the witnesses called by the complainant. The objective evidence of the continued passing of dead puppies and fragments provided the clearest possible indication of the carelessness on the part of the practitioner. It fully justified the finding of a failure in proper professional attention.": Burton v Anderson [1994] NSWCA 36 (Kirby P) (Unreported, 28 October 1994) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/1994/36.html>.

• (finding of no breach) expert opinion on whether owners' consent required for emergency ear amputation in the course of treatment: "105 Issue. The first issue for the Tribunal is: was the VSIC justified in being satisfied of the truth of the complaint that Dr Hopwood amputated Boz' ear without authority? If so, did the conduct amount to misconduct in a professional respect even though it was not sufficiently serious to warrant its being referred to the Tribunal? ... 106 Legal position. In order to put this issue in context, we have set out the legal position before summarising the expert evidence. Rule 5(3) of the Code of Conduct states that: Except in the case of an emergency, a  veterinary  surgeon should not undertake any  veterinary  procedure on an animal without ensuring that the owner or person in charge of the animal is made aware of the likely extent and outcome of the procedure and of its probable cost. An example of an emergency is a circumstance in which there is an immediate threat to the life of the animal concerned. 107 A  veterinary surgeon will be deemed to be guilty of misconduct in a professional respect if the Tribunal finds that there has been a breach of this rule. (See s 22(c) of the Act and s 10(2) of the Regulation.) 108 In determining whether there has been a breach of Rule 5(3) there are two issues which need to be addressed: did Dr Hopwood make the person in charge of the animal (Michael or Tracey) aware of the likely extent of the procedure before the surgery? If not, was it unnecessary because this was an emergency? 109 Expert evidence. Dr Hopwood agreed that no-one gave him express authority to amputate the pinna but he understood that his authority extended to doing everything he could to save Boz. According to Dr Hopwood he did not have express authority because he did not realise until one and a half hours into the surgery that the ear needed to be amputated. Dr Hopwood noted that systematic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) was a risk for Boz because of his high temperature, heart rate and respiration. If left unattended, Boz would have died. ... 127 The judgment of Dr Hopwood's peers, who are practitioners of good repute and competence in the profession, is overwhelmingly that Dr Hopwood did not need to obtain the express permission of the carers to amputate Boz' ear in the circumstances with which he was faced. ... 129 Although the consent form that Michael signed did not contain any detailed description of the treatment to be administered, Michael gave permission for "treatment, anaesthetic and surgery to be performed on the animal described." Dr Hopwood completed the form himself and interpreted it as restricting his authority to the limited care option. The expert evidence strongly supports the conclusion that this authority includes permission to amputate the ear in circumstances where the need for amputation was not apparent until at least one and a half hours into the surgery. ... 131 We are also satisfied that Dr Hopwood had authority to amputate the pinna because it was an emergency. Although the expert evidence is mixed on this question, we find that while Boz would not have died if the pinna was not removed at the time, we accept Ms Stenmark's submissions about the nature of the situation and its classification as an emergency": Hopwood v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee [2002] NSWADT 44. (see also, discussion of Sheppard v Swan in Medical Negligence)

• Incorrect diagnosis - significant errors on clinical interpretation of x-rays (finding of professional misconduct and negligence): Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Griffiths [2021] SACAT 108, [356]. 

• practice being grossly unhygienic: Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Warren [2021] SACAT 111; see also, Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Brown [2016] QCAT 234; Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Warren (No 2) [2022] SACAT 84.

• Inaccuracies in Poisons Register; Failure to keep clinical records: Veterinary Surgeons Board of Western Australia v Harris [2017] WASAT 100.

• Clinical practice - accuracy of pain localisation and prostatic examination; faiure to take samples for testing, incorrect diagnosis, failure to diagnose, inappropriate prescription of medication contraindicated, failure to do PCV on admission before administration of fluids: "181 In the Tribunal's opinion, a PCV test should have been done much earlier and no later than within the first 24 hours after reception. It is important that a PCV test be done before the administration of any fluids. ... 238 As we have indicated earlier in our account of the events in this matter, we agree with Dr Bradley that the elicitation of pain on rectal examination should have led Dr Lloyd to consider prostatic disease in an un-desexed male dog. Even if infection or prostatic disease is not otherwise indicated by the manual examination the elicitation of pain when investigating this region of the dog should give rise to concern as to the state of the prostate. 239 Dr Lloyd made several statements about the factors which he took into consideration in ruling out, as other possible diagnoses, prostate and systemic problems. 240 In his first statement tendered to the Tribunal, Dr Bradley gave evidence adopting as correct for this purpose Mrs Robinson's statement that, given the same historical information, he would have considered systemic disease. Dr Driver conceded that if presented with the same case as depicted by Mrs Robinson, he may have considered the possibility of infection. 241 We have accepted Mrs Robinson's evidence. A competent veterinarian would have considered systemic disease. ... 242 Dr Lloyd dispensed medication that was inappropriate and contraindicated in treatment of prostatic disease. ... 259 PCV. The Tribunal agrees with Dr Bradley's opinions in this regard and considers that Dr Lloyd should have undertaken a PCV on admission of the dog to care, and that by the time he did it (10 March 1997) it was far too late.": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Lloyd (Inquiry 3: 'Remus' - Findings: Allegations 1 (a) to (e)) [2002] NSWADT 285.

• Delay in conducting investigations, including blood testing; metcam administered not sufficient to manage pain, inadequate stock-keeping of opioid analgesics, finding of negligence or incompetent practice: "45. ... The experts both agreed that the patient should ideally have been investigated sooner. The concerns were that this dog was unwell and ideally warranted at least a blood test and more thorough workup for being both underweight and markedly lame. .. The experts agreed that in the circumstances of the dog’s presentation, other investigations (e.g. blood tests) should have been undertaken or the options given to undertake to the owner or the representative to more thoroughly investigate, diagnose, prognosis and/or treat an emaciated patient that was not eating on presentation, but noted that: the owners were not contactable for two days and no more than basic (pain relief, stabilisation) treatment can be given without the owner’s express permission, and the experts did not have the full history otherwise. They were unable to determine what permissions were given from the record, but in taking a $400 deposit this included daily meds for five days, and although not mentioned, assume that some diagnostic workup was agreed to.": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Canty [2022] QCAT 277, [88] (finding of negligence).

• inappropriate administration of Stanazol, Anadiol, Deca 50, anabolic steriod, to horses without examination and evaluation: "[427] We have found that it is not good practice to treat a number of horses for the same symptoms and with the same dose of anabolic steroids without examination and evaluation. We have found that in the absence of an individual examination and follow up of each horse to be treated Dr Griffin could not be satisfied the drugs were necessary. In this matter, Dr Griffin administered anabolic steroids to 58 and 24 horses respectively for the same symptoms and with the same dose of drug for each horse. Dr Griffin administered the drugs in circumstances where he did not adequately examine and follow up each horse and where each horse (being of a different weight and gender) may not respond the same way to the same dose of drug ...[463] We find that on balance Dr Griffin was not and could not reasonably have been satisfied that each horse to be treated required the drugs Testoprop and Stanazol for a therapeutic use or purpose as part of the animal’s treatment because no existing symptoms were present and Dr Griffin’s examination and evaluation of each horse was limited. [464] We have found that in every case before treatment, a veterinary surgeon must establish whether the animal in fact needs treatment and this requires an examination and evaluation where there is clinical justification and documentation. We have found that an examination of a horse in particular racehorses includes taking temperature, pulse, respiration, examination from nose to tail, palpating and running hands over limbs, paying particular attention to the musculoskeletal system. We have also found that an anabolic steroid is not an appropriate first line treatment in a horse that may be suffering a condition. ... [558] In summary, we found that in every case before treatment, a veterinary surgeon must establish whether the animal needs treatment. We found that this requires an examination and evaluation where there is clinical justification and documentation; and there should be careful follow up on the outcomes of treatment. We found that an examination of a horse in particular racehorses includes taking temperature, pulse, respiration, examination from nose to tail, palpating and running hands over limbs, paying particular attention to the musculoskeletal system. [559] In relation to treating a horse with an anabolic steroid, we found that an anabolic steroid is not an appropriate first line treatment in a horse that may be suffering a condition. In relation to treating a horse with Bute Paste that contains the active ingredient phenylbutazone, we found that there are potential adverse effects that must be considered. We found that an animal treated with phenylbutazone for weeks or months requires monitoring with blood parameters and clinical evaluation. We also found that horses of different weights and of different gender are not going to respond the same way to the same dose of an anabolic steroid; and phenylbutazone. [560] We found that where a number of racing and sporting horses have been treated for the same symptoms it is unlikely that the number of horses treated would present symptoms which would require exactly the same treatment and dosage of drug for each horse at the same time; and that it would be unusual to treat without evaluation. We also found that horses that have come out of race training have individual and very different problems and it would be reasonable veterinary practice to evaluate each individual horse and not treat in a blanket fashion. [561] In relation to each of the allegations, we found that Dr Griffin’s examination and evaluation of each horse treated was inadequate. We found Dr Griffin’s conduct for each allegation was ‘misconduct in a professional respect,’ for the purposes of s 22F of the Act because his practice or conduct as a veterinary surgeon fell below the standard expected by his professional peers and the public.": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Griffin [2016] QCAT 380.

• Misleading and/or deceptive conduct in relation to certification: Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Howe [2002] NSWADT 191; cf Levin v McNaught (General) [2010] NSWCTTT 350 (NOTE, also M+DC under the Australian Consumer Laws/Fair Trading Act: Ultra Thoroughbred Racing Pty Ltd v Those Certain Underwriters & Ors [2011] VSC 589).

• Inadequate storage of schedule 8 drugs, ketamine stored in truck: Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Warren [2022] SACAT 79; Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia v Warren (No 2) [2022] SACAT 84.

• performing of out-moded surgery on a cat and the signing of blank vaccination certificates: "treatment of a male cat 'Jake' for feline urologic syndrome in the month of October 1983 ... not performing or causing or permitting to be performed a perineal urethrostomy on the said cat and that the treatment which you in fact carried out was not in accordance with or contrary to contemporary professional standards of proper treatment for feline urologic syndrome. ... appellant, conceded that the operation carried out by the appellant on "Jake" in late 1983 was not a perineal urethrostomy, that the Board was correct in holding that a perineal urethostomy was the appropriate procedure for animals with the condition from which "Jake" was suffering and that the perineal urethostomy was the procedure which the appellant should have carried out and that the procedure which he did carry out was a cystostomy. He conceded also that the appellant signed vaccination certificates with no information on them and that he should not have done that. ... True the wrong operation was performed through ignorance and not any lack of desire to cure "Jake". But it was so serious a failing through such depths of ignorance that the penalty is appropriate. The appellant should not have essayed surgery at all. He should have recommended the owners of "Jake" to call in someone who really knew what to do.": Kuebler v Veterniary Surgeons Board (Supreme Court of South Australia, Unreported, 12 Febrary 1986, No. 1922 of 1985, Bollen J) <https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/1986/8899.pdf>. 

• "failure to identify the correct hip before commencing ‘unnecessary and unauthorised surgery’, and by the failure to take post-operative x-rays to ensure the surgery was adequate and as a check on recovery. ... the left femoral head was removed from the wrong hip ... failure to advise the Board that she had settled a claim with the dog’s owner by the payment of compensation of $3,000" (finding of negligent conduct): Lehmann v The Registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board of SA [2014] SADC 201 (Tilmouth J). 

• unlawfully prescribing restricted medicines in the name of fictitious animals, which he personally consumed and supplied to others: Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v Aarn [2023] QCAT 255.

• "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, amongst others, the veterinary surgeon is habitually drunk or is addicted to any deleterious drug; or conducts any veterinary premises or other place for the practise of veterinary science where he or she is not in fulltime attendance; who gives a certificate, notice, report or like document that is incomplete or is false or misleading in a material respect; or is convicted of an offence involving cruelty to an animal, who ‘is negligent or incompetent in the practise of his or her profession’": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v BZD [2023] QCAT 241, [25].

• inappropriate use of power tools - equine dentist - "misguided in her approach to the techniques used": Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland v MacIntosh [2010] QCAT 601.

• failure to advise about euthanasia prior to undertaking any surgery, no pre-operative bloodwork was recommended to assess surgical risk and implications in increasing Digoxin dose despite knowledge of possible renal failure, inappropriate dispensing of drugs, inappropriate dosage, failure to dispense safer antibiotic, no reason evident to administer ore toxic antibiotic, ... "Instead of using Ketoprofen and Finadyne for pain relief, both being non steroidal anti inflammatory drugs, you could have used another safe analgesic, such as Temgesic", failure to re-check renal and electrolyte values before making this decision in spite of the dog's obvious illness, absent from practice: "38 In the case of both wolfhounds Dr Gelderman made admissions as to failures in relation to the diagnosis and the prescription of appropriate drugs and treatment. In both cases he made admissions that the steps that he took contributed to the occurrence of conditions in each case which contributed to the death of the animals. 39 In both cases he admitted that he had failed to undertake usual checks in relation to the problem presented which would have given rise to information relevant to his decision as to the appropriate form of treatment. In both cases had those steps been taken a prudent practitioner would have received information warning him not to embark on the course of treatment that Dr Gelderman chose. In both cases he prescribed amounts and combinations of drugs which were inappropriate. 40 These significant failures in diagnosis and treatment are likely to have contributed to the deaths of the animals. 41 In both cases the notice of inquiry contained particulars in support of the charges of professional misconduct which referred to alleged failures in communication with the dog’s owner. The facts relating to those communications were agreed by the parties to be in dispute, and accordingly no account is taken of those matters in these reasons. 42 The Panel views the number and degree of Dr Gelderman’s failure to observe satisfactory standards of veterinary care most seriously.": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Gelderman [2000] NSWADT 117, aff'd on appeal: Gelderman v Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee (GD) [2001] NSWADTAP 27.

• Deceived patient's owner about Cat's cause of death, falsification of records, "Cat 1 died as a result of the administration of lethabarb. ...  Dr Johnson administered the lethal dose of lethabarb. ... 39 At the hearing, Dr Johnson admitted that he fabricated records that purported to establish that Cat 1 received treatment, including the administration of lethabarb, at least two days after she had died.": Veterinary Practitioners Board of New South Wales v Johnson [2010] NSWADT 308.

• failed to provide the right treatment to a sick cat, or refer a sick cat to another practice: 'Vet to pay $18,000 in malpractice case' (ABC News, 17 September 2005) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-09-17/vet-to-pay-18000-in-malpractice-case/2105438>.

• (UKPC) signing of blank veterinary certificates: George Alfred Smith v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (The Disciplinary Committee of The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons) [1980] UKPC 16 (19 May 1980) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/1980/1980_16.html>. This case was summarised in  Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants [1989] 1 MLJ 331, 337 (Thean J, High Court Singapore): "I was referred to the case of Smith v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons No 27 of 1979 (not reported) which was an appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the disciplinary committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ordering the removal of Smith from the register upon the finding of the committee that he was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. In that case, Smith, who was a veterinary surgeon, frequently had occasion to give certificates as to the health and condition of animals and birds. It was his practice when calling upon his clients away from the surgery to take with him a supply of blank sheets of paper headed with his professional address and bearing at their foot his signature, below which were his name and qualifications. When occasion arose he would fill in the blank sheet at his client's premises the appropriate wording of the certificate the client required. On one occasion after he had inspected 100 parakeets at his client's premises he was preparing a certificate on one of the blank forms he had already signed, and in the course of it he was interrupted by an urgent telephone message that his father was seriously injured in an accident. He immediately left without completing the certificate, and left it to his client to complete which turned out to be wrong. This incident formed the subject matter of one charge against Smith. There was another charge and that related to Smith leaving behind at his client's premises a blank form of ‘health certificate’ bearing his signature. The disciplinary committee found Smith guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect on the two charges. On appeal, the Privy Council held that on the evidence the disciplinary committee was entitled to come to the conclusion that what Smith did in each case amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

• (UKPC) post-dating of veterinary certificates and pet passports; false certification; misrepresentations about the medical position to owners (see authorities discussed within); importance of correctness of veterinary certificates discussed: "The correctness of veterinary certificates is also a matter of importance, and can in some contexts bear on animal and indeed human health. The RCVS's Guide to Professional Conduct (2002 edition) underlines the obvious need for truthfulness and accuracy, in the interests of both clients and third parties.": Walker v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) [2007] UKPC 64 (21 November 2007) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2007/64.html>; see also, on importance of correctness of veterinary certificates: Williams v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2008] UKPC 39 (28 July 2008) <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKPC/2008/39.html>. 

• "The conduct of intentionally falsifying a veterinary certificate relating to disease testing status for export horses is unprofessional conduct": Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v Thompson [2007] NSWADT 107, [47]. 

• (UK/Singapore): " moral turpitude is not the only kind of case out with the conduct of a medical practice which may constitute serious professional misconduct. In Marten v. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Committee [1966] 1 Q.B. 1 a farmer who was also a veterinary surgeon was found to have failed to give adequate care for animals on his farm. He was not guilty of any moral turpitude, but his conduct was held to constitute conduct disgraceful to him in a professional respect. Lord Parker C.J. observed, at p. 9: “But if the conduct, though reprehensible in anyone is in the case of the professional man so much more reprehensible as to be defined as disgraceful, it may, depending on the circumstances, amount to conduct disgraceful of him in a professional respect in the sense that it tends to bring disgrace on the profession which he practises. It seems to me, although I do not put this forward in any sense as a definition, that the conception of conduct which is disgraceful to a man in his professional capacity is conduct disgraceful to him as reflecting on his profession, or, in the present case, conduct disgraceful to him as a practising veterinary surgeon.” Marten was found on account of his work as a farmer to be guilty of conduct disgraceful to him as a practising veterinary surgeon.": Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council [2008] SGHC 78 <http://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2008_SGHC_78>.   

[F] Veterinary Science/Medicine Literature:

• MSD Veterinary Manual (Merck & Co., Inc.), <https://www.msdvetmanual.com/>.

[G] Veterinary Negligence (and Animal Law) Literature:

• Sophie Riley (ed), Animal Law Casebook (University of Technology Sydney, 2015) <https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/2015%20Final%20Version%20ANIMAL%20LAW%20CASE%20BOOK%201.pdf>; Chapter 6: Tort and Damages: <https://austlii.community/foswiki/Books/AnimalLawCaseBook/Chapter6>. 

> Robinson v Wagner (1911) 30 NZLR 367.

> Beaumont v Cahir [2004] ACTSC 97.

> Ferguson v Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd (2006) 79 OR (3d) 681.

• (Australia - Decided cases on liability and Damages): Katy Barnett and Jeremy Gans, Guilty Pigs, The Weird and Wonderful History of Animal Law (La Trobe University Press, 2022): 

> Davies v Bennison (Tas), in chapter 1.

> Beaumont v Cahir (ACT), in chapter 1. 

> See also, Cenuan Bliss, 'Guilty Pigs: The Weird and Wonderful History of Animal Law' (2023) 26(1) Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 71 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13880292.2023.2235165>. 

> See also, Isobelle Wainwright, '‘Guilty Pigs: The Weird and Wonderful History of Animal Law’ – An interview' (Webpage, UNSW Law Journal) <https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/forum_article/guilty-pigs-the-weird-and-wonderful-history-of-animal-law-an-interview>. 

• Alex Bruce, Animal Law in Australia: An Integrated Approach (LexisNexis, 2nd ed, 2017).

• Animal Law Guide NSW (Law Society of NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee, 2010) <https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-04/Animal%20law%20guide%20NSW.pdf>.

• John Hill, 'Professional Negligence' (1993) 70(12) Australian Veterinary Journal 458 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1993.tb00853.x>.

• Sophie Riley, 'Developing an Animal Law Case Book: Knowledge Transfer and Service Learning from Student-Generated Materials' (2015) 25(1) Legal Education Review 251 <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdRev/2015/12.pdf>. 

• US Law: David S Favre, 'Detailed Discussion of Veterinarian Malpractice' (Michigan State University College of Law, Webpage, 2002) <https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-veterinarian-malpractice>; 'Veterinary Malpractice Law (Justia, 2022) <https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/veterinary-malpractice/>.

• (US) (Assessment of Damages - Heads of Damages) David Favre, 'Overview of Damages for Injury to Animals - Pet losses' (Michigan State University College of Law, Webpage, 2003) <https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-damages-injury-animals-pet-losses>. 

• 'Damages for Death or Injury of an Animal' (Webpage, Animal Legal Defence Fund) <https://aldf.org/article/damages-for-death-or-injury-of-an-animal/>. 

• ***(US, Canada): The Animal Law Digest (Website, Brooks Institute) <https://thebrooksinstitute.org/animal-law-digest>; <https://thebrooksinstitute.org/animal-law-digest/us>; <https://thebrooksinstitute.org/animal-law-digest/canada>. 

• Guild Insurance Limited, 'Employee Negligence - who foots the bill' (2006) 84(5) Australian Veterinary Journal N22 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2006.tb12760.x> here. --- note Guild Insurance and Australian Veterinary Association relationship: "The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is excited for Guild Insurance to be our long and valued partner and product provider for pet insurance.": https://vetschoice.guildinsurance.com.au/about/about-us.  See also, Guild and Meridian Lawyers: https://www.guildinsurance.com.au/industry/meridian-lawyers. 

• Lydia Tong, 'Identifying non-accidental injury cases in veterinary practice' (2016) 38 BMJ In Practice 59 (12 February 2016) <https://lucysproject.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Identifying-NAI-in-Veterinary-Practice-Feb-2016-Tong.pdf> here.

• Simon Coghlan, 'Legal status and malpractice' (2018) 40(2) BMJ In Practice 78-79 <https://doi.org/10.1136/inp.k823>. 

• Mark Russell, 'Amralah lawsuit: Vet practice should have known better over cortisone, court told' (The Age, Newspaper, 25 February 2016) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/amralah-lawsuit-vet-practice-should-have-known-better-over-cortisone-court-told-20160225-gn3cgw.html>.

• 'A note on negligence' (Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Webpage) <https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/reference-information/a-note-on-negligence/>.

• 'Veterinary Malpractice Law in Canada' (Dolden Wallace Folick LLP, Paper) <https://www.dolden.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Veterinary-Malpractice-Paper.pdf>.

• failed to provide the right treatment to a sick cat, or refer a sick cat to another practice: 'Vet to pay $18,000 in malpractice case' (ABC News, 17 September 2005) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-09-17/vet-to-pay-18000-in-malpractice-case/2105438>.

•  'Vet ethics: Emotional damages for animals: further considerations' (The Veterinarian, 13 November 2017) <https://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2253>

• Rebecca J. Huss, 'Valuation in Veterinary Malpractice' (2004) 35 Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal 479 <https://scholar.valpo.edu/law_fac_pubs/29/>.

• Rebecca J. Huss, 'The Pervasive Nature of Animal Law: How the Law Impacts the Lives of People and Their Animal Companions' (2009) 43(3) Valparaiso University Law Review 1131.

• Anne Quain, Ethically challenging situations encountered by veterinary team members (PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, June 2022), here.

• Samantha Anne Schnobel, Prioritising the best interest of the Animal and re-framing Veterinary Negligence (PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, September 2016) <https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/7246/1/Schnobel17PhD.pdf>.

• Mary Randoplh, 'Veterinary Malpractice' (Nolo) <https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/dog-book/chapter5-8.html>.

• Relevant State and Territory Veterinarian Code of Conduct. Eg, Veterinary Practice Veterinary Practitioners Code of Professional Conduct 2018 (ACT); Veterinary Practitioners Code of Professional Conduct in Veterinary Practice Regulation 2013 (NSW) (schedule 2); Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons (Veterinary Surgeons Board of South Australia); Veterinary Surgeons Board of WA, Board Guidelines to Professional Conduct <https://www.vsbwa.org.au/common/Uploaded%20files/vet%20Guidelines/BOARD-GUIDELINES-TO-PROFESSIONAL-CONDUCT-August-2014V2.pdf>; VETERINARY PRACTICE BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CODE OF PRACTICE NO.1 OF 2022 <https://www.vsbwa.org.au/common/Uploaded%20files/vet%20Guidelines/Code%20of%20Practice%20website.pdf>; Veterinary Practice Board of Western Australia, Codes of Practice and Guidelines <https://www.vsbwa.org.au/Public/_VSBWA/Vets/Code%20of%20Practice%20and%20Guidelines.aspx?hkey=193b44b4-320d-4685-a61f-7e0de614b1b0>; Veterinarian Surgeons Board of Queensland—resources: <https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/veterinarian-surgeons-board>; Professional Associations Code of Conduct: eg, Australian Veterinary Association. Available online: http://www.ava.com.au/conduct; https://guides.dtwd.wa.gov.au/crt-dur-animalcare-veterinary-nursing/legislation.

• Veterinary Surgeons Board of Hong Kong, disciplinary inquiries: https://www.vsbhk.org.hk/english/disciplinary_inquiry/disciplinary.html?view=archive.

• 'Vets must be vigilant to avoid legal action' (Meridian Lawyers, Webpage, 7 June 2017) <https://www.meridianlawyers.com.au/insights/vets-must-vigilant-avoid-legal-action/>.

• Cake, M. A., Bell, M. A., Williams, J. C., Brown, F. J. L., Dozier, M., Rhind, S. M., & Baillie, S, 'Which professional (non-technical) competencies are most important to the success of graduate veterinarians? A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 38' (2016) 38(6) Medical Teacher, 550–563.<https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2016.1173662>, <https://researchportal.murdoch.edu.au/esploro/outputs/991005543693307891/filesAndLinks?institution=61MUN_INST&index=null>. here.

• "A client experiencing a negative health outcome as a result of non-adherence with veterinary instructions could be interpreted as veterinary malpractice or negligence": Diana H Mendez, Petra Buttner, Jenny Kelly, Madeleine Nowak and Rick Speare, 'Difficulties experienced by veterinarians when communicating about emerging zoonotic risks with animal owners: the case of Hendra virus', BMC Veterinary Research (2017) 13:56 at page 9 <https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-017-0970-2>, here.

• 'Litigation for Professional Negligence and the Veterinary Practitioner' (1976) 52(9) Australian Veterinary Journal 427-8 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1976.tb09520.x> here.

• 'Vet's actions endorsed by court' (2000) 78(1) Australian Veterinary Journal 14 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb10346.x> here.

• 'Practice Pitfalls' (2000) 78(10) Australian Veterinary Journal 660 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb10386.x> here.

• John Tindall, 'It shouldn't happen to a vet...' (1992) 14(1) In Practice 48 <https://www.proquest.com/openview/70a12b005a945ad359be705efdaf3061/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2041885> here.

• 'The Veterinary Surgeons Board of Queensland - 1968' (1969) 45(6) Australian Veterinary Journal 302 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1969.tb01959.x> here.

• 'News' (2017) 95(7) Australian Veterinary Journal N1-N22 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.197> here.

• 'Practice Pitfalls: WARNING: Test for any “faults”' (2000) 78(8) Australian Veterinary Journal 516 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2000.tb11885.x> here.

• 'News' (2017) 95(9) Australian Veterinary Journal N1-N20 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/avj.201> here. 

• 'Letters' (2003) 81(6) Australian Veterinary Journal 324-327 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1751-0813.2003.tb11504.x> here. 

• NZ: eg, https://www.animallaw.info/countries/new-zealand.

• AU, eg, https://www.animallaw.info/countries/australia. 

• Rochelle Morton et al, 'Assessing the Uniformity in Australian Animal Protection Law: A Statutory Comparison' (2021) 11(1) Animals 35 <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/1/35#>.

• Rochelle Morton and Alexandra L Whittaker, 'Understanding Subordinate Animal Welfare Legislation in Australia: Assembling the Regulations and Codes of Practice' (2022) 12(18) Animals 2437 <https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/18/2437>. 

• Rochelle Morton, Kendrew Ngai, Alexandra L Whittaker, '“Commenting” on Animal Cruelty: A Content Analysis of Social Media Discourse on Animal Law Enforcement in Australia' (2023) 36(4) Anthrozoos 685 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08927936.2023.2187137>. 

• Eppinga v Kalil [2023] NSWCA 287.

• Expert Evidence, Australia: 'Expert Witness in Animals - Veterinary Science' <https://expertexperts.com.au/experts/field-of-expertise/veterinary-science>; 'Expert Witnes in Animals - Veterinary Practice' <https://expertexperts.com.au/experts/field-of-expertise/animals-veterinary-practice>. 

• Guild Insurance, Jardine Lloyd and Thompson, Risk Consultants and Insurance Brokers, AON Risk Services, AXIS Insurance and APESMA, 'Professional Indemnity Insurance' (VSBWA, Autumn Issue, March 2013) <https://www.vsbwa.org.au/common/Uploaded%20files/Newsletters/Autumn%202013.pdf>. 

• 'Providing consent to veterinary care' (Guild Insurance Limited) <https://riskhq.guildinsurance.com.au/docs/default-source/riskhq-documents/vet335868-providing-consent-to-veterinary-care--risk-article-rebrand-092023_web-art1.pdf?sfvrsn=5395440b_1>. 

• *** RiskHQ - Risk Materials for Veterinarians (Guild Insurance Limited, Webpage) <https://riskhq.guildinsurance.com.au/articles/veterinarians>. 

• 'Dog owner devastated after puppy has wrong leg amputated in Queensland vet clinic error' (7News, 5 May 2020) <https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/pets/dog-owner-devastated-after-puppy-has-wrong-leg-amputated-in-queensland-vet-clinic-error-c-1017461>. 

• Mariela Gonzalez Alcantara, 'Una Propuesta para Casos de Impericia Veterinaria: Reconociendo a los Animales Como Sujetos de Derechos' (2018) 53(2) Revista Juridica de la Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico 371. - valuation of damages.

• Margit Livingston, 'The Calculus of Animal Valuation: Crafting a Viable Remedy' (2004) 82(3) Nebraska Law Review 783.

• ** Charles Foster, 'It shouldn't happen to a vet' (1995) 139 Solicitors' Journal 186-188. - "Veterinary negligence cases can be very difficult. Charles Foster provides a guide to law and practice in this relatively unfamiliar territory ... ".

• Sebastien Gay, 'Companion Animal Capital' (2010) 17(1) Animal Law 77.

• Phyllis Coleman, 'Man['s Best Friend] Does Not Live by Bread Alone: Imposing a Duty to Provide Veterinary Care' (2005) 12(1) Animal Law 7, 12. 

• Ann Hartwell Britton, "Bones of Contention: Custody of Family Pets" (2006) 20:1 J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 1, 31: "Claims for veterinary malpractice are relatively rare.206 One obvious explanation for this is that damages have been too low to merit an attorney's time or the costs to bring the suit because the market value of a pet is likely to be either de minimis or otherwise too small to merit hiring an expert to prove veterinary negligence. 20 7 However, health insurance for pets, called veterinary or pet insurance, is widely advertised."

• Steve Barghusen, 'Noneconomic damage awards in Veterinary Malpractice: using the human experience as a model to predict the effect of noneconomic damage awards on the practice of companion animal veterinary practice' (2010) 17 Animal Law 13. 

• 'Legal Duties of Pet Owners' (Document, Singapore Management University Pro Bono Centre) <https://pbc.smu.edu.sg/sites/pbc.smu.edu.sg/files/covid19/Legal%20Duties%20of%20Pet%20Owners.pdf>. 

• 'Can I Sue Someone for Killing or Hurting My Dog?' (Webpage, Enjuris) <https://www.enjuris.com/blog/questions/sue-if-kill-dog/>. 

• Anne F Walker, 'Ontario courts award compensation for emotional distress associated with the loss of a pet' (2007) 48(9) Canadian Veterinary Journal 967-969 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1950104/#main-content>. 

• Jodi Lazare, '“Who Gets the Dog?”: A Family Law Approach' (2020) 45(2) Queens Law Journal 287 <https://journal.queenslaw.ca/sites/qljwww/files/Issues/Vol%2045%20i2/4.%20Lazare%20-%20Final.pdf>. 

• Jessica Dellow, 'Valuing Companion Animals: Alternativ aluing Companion Animals: Alternatives to Market Value' (2008) 17 Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 175 <https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=djls>; see also, <https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2008CanLIIDocs40#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA>. 

• (Canada): 'Damages - Companion Animals' (Webpage, Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources) <http://www.isthatlegal.ca/index.php?name=damages.Companion-Animals>. 

• Andrew Buckley, 'Why we should Keep the Doggie-Door Closed on Emotional Damages: Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd., 2006 CanLII 2049 (ON SCDC)' (Webpage, CanLII Connecte, 14 March 2016) <https://canliiconnects.org/fr/commentaires/41219>. 

• Jason Neyers, 'Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd 79 O.R. (3d) 681 (Div Ct)' (Webpage, ODG Archives, 14 August 2006) <https://www.stevehedley.com/odg/messages/060814e.htm>. 

• (Canada): 'My Cat Is Not A Clock' (Webpage, Animal Law Center, 16 January 2015) <https://animalsandlaws.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/my-cat-is-not-a-clock/>.

• William C Root, 'Man's Best Friend: Property or Family Member - An Examination of the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and Its Impact on Damages Recoverable for Their Wrongful Death or Injury' (2002) 47(2) Villlanova Law Review 423 <https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1362&context=vlr>. 

• Logan Martin, 'Dog Damages: The Case for Expanding the Available Remedies for the Owners of Wrongfully Killed Pets in Colorado' (2011) 82 University of Colorado Law Review 921 <https://lawreview.colorado.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/12.-Martin-final_s.pdf>. 

• Lauren M Sirois, 'Recovering for the Loss of a Beloved Pet: Rethinking the Legal Classification of Companion Animals and the Requirements for Loss of Companionship Tort Damages' (2015) 163(4) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1199 <https://www.jstor.org/stable/24752764>. 

• (US): 'CACI No. 3903O. Injury to Pet - Costs of Treatment (Economic Damage): Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)' (Webpage, Justitia) <https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/3900/3903o/>. 

• Debra D Burke, 'A Clarion Call for Emotional Damages in Loss of Companion Pet Cases' (2021) 15(2) Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy 250.

• Michael John Westerman, Invaluable Furry Friends: Measuring Damages for Companion and Service Animal Injury/Loss (MJWestermanLaw, 2019).

• Jade McKenzie, 'Em'BARK'ing on the Journey to Expand Recovery of Damages for the Loss of a Companion Animal' (2016) 19(2) Chapman Law Review 659.

• Zachary Paterick, Timothy Paterick and Sandy Sanbar, 'A Stepping Stone Toward Companion Animal Protection Through Compensation' (2015) 22 Animal Law 79.

• **(US Law): Alison M Rowe, 'Survey of Damages Measures Recognized in Negligence Cases involving Animals' (2013) 5(2) Kentucky Journal of Equine, Agriculture & Natural Resources Law 249 <https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kjeanrl/vol5/iss2/5/>. 

• William A Reppy Jr, 'Punitive Damage Awards in Pet-Death Cases: How do the Ratio Rules of State Farm v Campbell Apply?'(2006) 1 Journal of Animal Law and Ethics 19.

• ** (US Law): Peter Barton and Francis Hill, 'How Much will you Receive in Damage from the Negligent or Intentional Killing of Your Pet Dog or Cat' (1989) 34(3) New York Law School Law Review 411 <https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2395&context=nyls_law_review>. 

• Sabrina DeFabritiis, 'Barking Up the Wrong Tree: Companion Animals, Emotional Damages and the Judiciary's Failure to Keep Pace' (2012) 32(2) Northern Illionois University Law Review 237.

• George Coppolo, 'Cause of Action for Loss of a Companion Animal' (OLR Research Report, 3 December 1999) <https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/99-R-1228.htm>. 

• Victor E Schwartz and Emily J Laird, 'Non-Economic Damages in Pet Litigation: The Serious Need to Preserve a Rational Rule' (2006) 33(2) Pepperdine Law Review 227.

• "Phrases such as “poor prognosis” and “guarded condition” should be discarded because they are deceptive and avoidant terms that are often used to misrepresent the fact that a patient is dying. Physicians must learn to engage in gentle but direct truth-telling in the dispensation of their duty to patients who depend on them for accurate yet compassionate descriptions of their condition. Doing so allows all who are engaged in the journey to better prepare themselves for the death of the patient.": Russell G Robertson, 'End-of-Life Care' (2002) 65(5) Am Fam Physician 787-91 <https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0301/p787.html>. 

• (Australia): Steven White, 'Companion Animals: Members of the Family or Legally Discarded Objects' (2009) 32(3) UNSW Law Journal 852.

• (Australia): Steven White, 'Standards and Standard-Setting in Companion Animal Protection' (2016) 38(4) Sydney Law Review 463.

• (Australia): 'Vet Ethics: Emotional Damages for Animals: Further Considerations' (Webpage, The Veterinarian Magazine, 13 November 2017) <https://theveterinarian.com.au/?p=2253>. 

• Paula Hallam, 'Dogs and Divorce: Chattels or Children - Or Somewhere In-between' (2014-15) 17 Southern Cross University Law Review 97 <http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SCULawRw/2015/6.pdf>. 

• Fiona Borthwick, 'Governing Pets and their Humans: Dogs and Companion Animals in New South Wales, 1966-98' (2009) 18(1) Griffith Law Review 185 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2009.10854635>; <https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/103702/Borthwick.pdf>. 

• (Valuation - Criminal Law): Lauren K Harris, 'Dog Theft: A Case for Tougher Sentencing Legislation' (2018) 8(5) Animals (Basel) 78. 

• Bradley Smith, 'The Pet Effect: Health Related Aspects of Companion Animal Ownership' (RACGP) - reprinted from (2012) 41(6) Australian Family Physician <https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/2832913c-96a4-4e54-b5eb-b5dcdc318ce6/The-pet-effect.aspx>. 

• Nicole R Pallotta, 'Chattel or Child: The Liminal Status of Companion Animals in Society and Law' (2019) 8(5) Social Sciences (Basel) 158.

• ***(Australia): Alexandra Whittaker and Meg Vine, 'The Price of a Four-Legged Friend: Non-Economic Damage Award in Australian Pet Litigation' (2016) 24(2) Tort Law Review 99-123 <https://rune.une.edu.au/web/handle/1959.11/20237>. here.

• Geeta Shyam, 'Is the Classification of Animals as Property Consistent with Modern Community Attitudes' (2018) 41(4) UNSW Law Journal 1418.

• Amanda Whitfort, 'Justice and the Vulnerable: Extending the Duty to Prevent Serious Crimes against Children to the Protection of Agricultural and Research Animals' (2018) 39(1) Adelaide Law Review 125.

• Linda Ellis, 'Anatomy of a Claim - Veterinary Professional Liability' (Webinar Handout, AVMA, 2017) <http://tvmanet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/08/TN-VMA-webinar-4.pdf>. 

• Martin J Strobel, 'Malpractice by Veterinarians' (1966) 15 Cleveland Marshall Law Review 276 <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216937831.pdf>. 

• Pre-Purchase Exam, Negligence:

> Nina Mouledous, 'How to Protect against Prepurchase Exam Malpracticer' (2021) 67 AAEP Proceedings 293 <https://aaep.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/Mouledous,%20Nina.pdf>. 

> Gregg A. Scoggins, 'Ethics: Issues in performing pre-purchase exams' (2021) AAEP News 111 <https://aaep.org/sites/default/files/issues/eve-23-4-0fm_003-012.pdf>. 

> 'How to avoid common pitfalls in the pre-purchase exam: How can vets avoid equine negligence claims when conducting pre-purchase examinations?' (Webpage, Improve Veterinary Practice, 19 December 2017) <https://www.veterinary-practice.com/article/how-to-avoid-common-pitfalls-in-the-pre-purchase-exam>.

> Ian Peacock, 'UK: Vet Who Carried Out A Pre-Purchase Examination Of A Horse Was Not Negligent In Failing To Make A Written Record: Blass v Randall [2008] EWHC 107 (QB)' (Webpage, Mondaq, 14 August 2008) <https://www.mondaq.com/uk/professional-negligence/63542/vet-who-carried-out-a-pre-purchase-examination-of-a-horse-was-not-negligent-in-failing-to-make-a-written-record>. 

> Andrew Leakey, 'Keep calm and carry on if you face a negligence claim' (Webpage, Vet Times, 1 December 2011) <https://www.vettimes.co.uk/app/uploads/wp-post-to-pdf-enhanced-cache/1/keep-calm-and-carry-on-if-you-face-a-negligence-claim.pdf>. 

> 'Certification' (Webpage, RCVS, 11 January 2023) <https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/code-of-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-surgeons/supporting-guidance/certification/>. 

> 'Vet checks for horses—buyer beware' (Webpage, Vet Practice Mag, 26 July 2016) <https://www.vetpracticemag.com.au/vet-checks-horses-buyer-beware/>. 

> Annie Lever, 'Pre-purchase Examinations' (Webpage, Equestrian Life) <https://www.equestrianlife.com.au/articles/Pre-purchase-examinations>. 

> Veterinary Surgeons Handbook (VSBWA, 2011 ed) 23 <https://www.vsbwa.org.au/common/Uploaded%20files/vet%20Guidelines/Handbook%20V13.2%20update%2026052020.pdf>.

> 'Resources' (Webpage, AVA) <https://www.ava.com.au/about-us/ava-groups/equine/resources/>.   

> 'Prepurchase Exams: Not a Yes or No Answer' (Webpage, The Horse, 5 August 2016) <https://thehorse.com/18334/prepurchase-exams-not-a-yes-or-no-answer/>. 

• *(not Vet Neg, but professional liability generally) Author of incorrect Pre-purchase report - negligence: Cate Doosey v Nigel Walsh & Complete Building Inspection Services Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 8.

> "Owners can recover damages where a building consultant has been negligent in preparing a prepurchase inspection report": 'Have you Suffered Loss over a Pre-Purchase Inspection Report?' (Bannermans Lawyers, 15 February 2021) <https://www.bannermans.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Have_you_suffered_loss_over_a_pre-purchase_inspection_report_15022021.pdf>. 

> Hamish Craib, 'Exclusion clauses in insurance policies can’t operate to make the contract a commercial nonsense' (Webpage, HBA Legal, 14 July 2017) <https://www.hbalegal.com/exclusion-clauses-in-insurance-policies-cant-operate-to-make-the-contract-a-commercial-nonsense/>; <https://www.hbalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/HBA-Lega_Exclusion-clauses-in-insurance-policies-can%E2%80%99t-operate-to-make-the-contract-a-commercial-nonsense_Jul-17.pdf>.

> 'Building Law – Claiming for an Incorrect Pre-Purchase Report' (Webpage, W&W Lawyers, 23 February 2017) <https://watsonandwatson.com.au/document-72/building-law-claiming-for-an-incorrect-pre-purchase-report>. 

[#] Breeder - Consumer Protection Legislation

See here.

[##] Joint Ownership of Dog - Issues - Possession

See Tan Huey Kuan (alias Chen Huijuan) v Tan Kok Chye & Anor [2011] SGHC 86 <https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2011_SGHC_86>. 

[19 February 2024 archive of page]: <https://perma.cc/YL63-N66R>. 

[4 March 2024 archive of page]: <https://perma.cc/2N6M-ZVLU>. 

[7 March 2024 archive of page]: <https://perma.cc/5UAQ-9UUM>. 

© Jing Zhi Wong, 2023-2024