When Can a Disciplinary Committee Have Regard to Matters Not Formally Alleged? Privy Council Hands Down Judgment in Kashiv v RCVS

On 9 November 2026 the Privy Council handed down judgment in Kashiv v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2026] UKPC 37. The appeal concerned a vet who removed a micro-chip from a stolen dog as part of a conspiracy to prevent the dog being recovered by its owner. The vet wrongly believed the dog had been abused.

In a police interview, the vet said that he may have done the same thing once or twice in the past. That past conduct did not form part of the disciplinary allegation against the vet.

The appeal raised in important issues of principle about whether, and in what circumstances, a disciplinary committee is entitled to take account of matters extraneous to the allegation before it when assessing impairment and sanction.

The Board (Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows) said: “[it] agrees with the submission made by Mr Mant KC that, although it would not have been right for the College to rely on past incidents as part of the allegation itself without giving proper particulars and adducing evidence of those incidents, it was relevant and legitimate in principle for the committee to take into account evidence about such incidents when assessing the risk of repeat behaviour for the purpose of determining the appropriate sanction.”

The Board noted that it would, in ordinary circumstances, be unfair to take account of statements of this kind without advanced notice of the intention to do so, and without giving the individual an opportunity to explain, clarify, or indeed to retract those statements.

However, on the facts, the disciplinary committee’s reliance on the police interview was not unfair because: (a) the vet had chosen to assert before the disciplinary committee that the de-chipping was an isolated event and the police interview rebutted the veracity of that contention; and (b) before the Board, the vet stood by what he said to the police and did not seek to retract those statements.

39 Essex Chambers’ barristet Peter Mant KC acted for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons instructed by Capsticks LLP.

The full judgment can be found here: https://jcpc.uk/cases/judgments/jcpc-2025-0094