Bring It On, Huxley, Dean of 'Veterinary School'. Exposing the Realities of Your 'School' Is the Hill I've Chosen to Die on. So It's the Courage of My Convictions vs the Size of Your Legal Budget.

Today, in response to my continued efforts to prise from Massey University's Legal and Governance department, my dog Harry's full (versus "summarised" and redacted) clinical records - and finally giving the institution until close of business today to indicate that they will do as legally required under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020 - the Dean of the Veterinary School panicked and brought in the Big Legal Guns.

Top tier law firm Buddle Findlay, no less.  (Hold onto your wallets, fellow taxpayers.) A move meant to scare the living bejeezus out of me in general, but with the most immediately required effect being that close of business would come and go with me in fits of fear that would see me immediately abort my stated intention of submitting my formal complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Massey's failure to comply with the Act.  (Didn't work. Complaint in process of being submitted.)

Before I treat readers to this afternoon's email exchange with Mr Jon Huxley (which I reproduce at the bottom of this article), it is incumbent upon me to alert all prospective students of Mr Huxley's veterinary school (and those prospective students' funders), to the apparent vacuum of basic veterinary, clinical and legislative knowledge at the top of the tree.

In my email (which you can read here) I advised of my intended escalation to the Privacy Commissioner, to someone down the line who had obviously been the junior previously tasked by Huxley with acting as a barricade, I laid out the grave concerns (that are, in granular, supportive detail, published in this series of articles on The Customer,  as well as in correspondence dismissed by the University). In that email, I again took the opportunity to express some of the central most issues of this case.

The problem - more so than the predictable roll-out of the legal silencing machinery - is that Huxley's "don't you dare" response provided an alarming window into the lethal combination of his ignorance, his denial, and his arrogant, heavy-handed dismissiveness.

For the purposes of the insight I am about to provide to those would-be future veterinarians who would wish their professional education to be grounded in a firm understanding at least of clinical basics, foundational veterinary literature, core legislation, and fundamental veterinary ethics, I will restrict my commentary to the glaring gaps in the Dean of the Veterinary School's knowledge base.

Mr Huxley's denial-without-detail email indicates that he is unaware of the following:

Sedation:  Accepted veterinary standards restrict the use of sedation to animals in pain or being prepared for surgery. (Neither applied to my dog, Harry.) Convenience sedation  is considered totally unacceptable.

Gabapentin:  The drug with which my dog was heavily convenience-sedated is strictly contraindicated for renally-compromised patients - which my dog was at a significant level, as could be readily seen in his clinical records. He had been diagnosed with kidney disease at Massey itself, and this diagnosis would have been sitting right next to the results from the comprehensive panel of blood tests that were processed upon his admission that very night. Yet ICU staff (without reason, without my consent, and without disclosure to me) chose this specific strictly contraindicated drug not only to recklessly administer to him, but they doubled down on that recklessness by further potentiating it with Maropitant, and repeat-dosed him over subsequent hours . . . with the effect that the drug clearly accumulated in his kidneys to a toxic and potentially lethal level. Yet the severe limitations of Mr Huxley's veterinary pharmacological knowledge have it, that this was all quite acceptable practice.

Honest Communication & Informed Consent:  Mr Huxley is apparently unaware that it is not honest to neglect to inform a pet's owner that the reason for the pet's suddenly semi-comatose state - in direct contrast to the pet's state when left in ICU the night before i.e. standing up strongly and balanced on his hind legs with his front legs outstretched through the cage door and crying loudly -  was due to a toxic accumulation of the repeated, contraindicated sedation cocktail that his kidneys had been unable to clear. Mr Huxley is also unaware that a veterinarian spending 45 minutes on the phone and an additional one hour in the consulting room coercing the pet's owner (who remains unaware of the pet's sedation) into signing a "euthanasia" consent, does not constitute "informed consent". And it most certainly does not resemble any degree of informed consent when the opportunity for an independent second opinion has not been given -  and when, in fact, by the prevailing circumstances, any possibility for another opinion has been neatly prevented.

Fiduciary Duty of Care re Pet's Remains:  Mr Huxley appears unaware of the multiple legislative "after care" requirements incumbent upon his "Companion Animal Hospital". These include but are not limited to a contract of Bailment. That is, In New Zealand law, when his facility is handed over someone's "property" (which pets are legally classified as) for treatment and subsequent after-care, a Contract of Bailment is created. That is, Massey, as the "bailee", has a legal obligation to exercise "reasonable care" over that property until it is returned to the owner. There is also the powerful common law principle of "non-delegable duty of care", and also (by incorporating the cremation services provider into its clinical workflow) the principle of Endorsement and, in Massey's case, Negligent Referral. Further, the Veterinary Council of New Zealand's Code of Professional Conduct's Section 2: Professionalism, makes it clear that a veterinarian’s professional obligations do not end at the moment of death. As clear, in fact, as this shameful, one-hour and three-minute phone call to Massey that I fruitlessly endured, in an attempt to determine the true whereabouts of my beloved dog's ashes, is in its non-professionalism:

Privacy Act & Information Release Legislation:  Mr Huxley is apparently unaware that Principle 6 of New Zealand's Privacy Act 2020 legally obligates the University to release the FULL clinical and all other records related to the owner's pet. He apparently struggles to comprehend that a "summary" is not the full records, and that two videos out of eight leaves six unreleased. And that the alteration of a patient's records continuing on for six weeks after the patient's death is neither normal ethical practice, or indeed, normal at all. He appears unable to see that his nebulous statement that "Information has and will be released as it becomes available" is in breach of the 20-working day requirement, when the 20-working day period has already elapsed. He appears not to understand that "No obstruction or delay has occurred" is not a credible claim, when the circumstances indicate precisely that obstruction and delay is occurring.

I will leave readers now to peruse the below legalistic email from the above-named Dean of Massey University's Veterinary School, along with my reply (presented, chronologically, above his correspondence). 

From : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com> 
Sent : Friday, 30 January 2026 8:57 pm
To : 'Jon Huxley' <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz>
Cc : 'Raymond Geor' <R.Geor@massey.ac.nz>; 'Privacy' <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>; 'Iain McLachlan' <iain@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Seton Butler' <seton@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'Liam Shields' <liam@vetcouncil.org.nz>; 'enquiries@privacy.org.nz' <enquiries@privacy.org.nz>
Subject : RE: Regarding Your Recent Allegations and Appropriate Next Steps

Dear Mr Huxley

I acknowledge your email and the involvement of Buddle Findlay.

You are correct that losing a beloved pet is difficult. However, it is made orders of magnitude more unacceptable when that loss occurs under fraudulent, manufactured circumstances and false pretences with highly questionable and suspicious underlying motives.

I note, ironically, your entirely unsubstantiated assertions (i.e. mine are not “unsubstantiated” and I invite you to read my intended publications that will clearly demonstrate this): Specifically, I note, your claim that my substantiated forensic, well-researched, and decidedly granular evidence is “unfounded”.

I also note your use of taxpayer-funded external legal counsel in an attempt to silence a vocal critic of your institution's standards i.e. who is already noted as such (long before the engineered demise of my latest pet).

Go your hardest, Mr Huxley, and Buddle Findlay. You will not silence me. Not now, not ever. To the best of my ability and for the rest of my life, I will do everything in my power to ensure a horror of this nature is never perpetrated upon another animal or their owner.

In the meantime, regarding your refusal of service related to any future pet I might own: In what deluded, alternative universe would you consider it remotely possible that I would ever again subject a pet to the Massey University veterinary "House of Horrors"? Their chances of making it out alive would again be next to nil.

The "truth" will not be found in your institutional gaslighting; it is to be found in your own clinical “summary” (that is, the parts you have had to leave in around those you have doctored)  and the invoice for Harry’s torturous final “stay” in your “care” (an invoice you never thought I would access or understand). with further, deeper truths almost certain to be found in the full and proper records that you are currently illegally withholding.

In the meantime, please be advised that any correspondence you and your grossly overpaid (from the public purse) legal shills target me with, will be publicised as a permanent record of my attitude towards, and well-known stance against, the precise type of institutional bullying in which you have now begun engaging.

Bring it on. 

Let’s allow the taxpayers, the pet owners, and any interested media outlets internationally, as well as other tertiary educational institutions worldwide, to see how you operate. What you do in the shadows is going to be brought into the open. And whether you like it or not, Mr Huxley, your limitless taxpayer-provided legal budget will not force this horror story back into the shadows.

In fact, Mr Huxley, your attempts to do so are probably now going to result in the matter receiving a far wider (and likely, international) audience than you had bargained for. Maybe your priority move should have been to direct your taxpayer-provided funding towards the engagement of an international PR firm, before wasting taxpayers’ money on lawyers. Because, frankly, for every dollar you drop into the eagerly awaiting coffers of Buddle Findlay, you will generate ten times that value in the international exposure of this travesty.

In short, the truth, and the many indisputable component facts thereof, are squarely on my side, Mr Huxley. And this is the hill I choose to die on.

One last thing: Your attempts to wash away this utter institutional shame by painting me as simply a deeply grieving pet owner gone off the rails, will be as futile as they are transparent.

With the publication of the many exposes I am currently researching and authoring, the media contacts I intend furthering my communications with, and the book I intend to publish – your shallow and desperate strategy will make of you a shamed laughing stock with international peers, pet owners, students (who should be horrified to know the culture of your hallowed institution) and the general public alike.

Thank you for your facilitation of the far wider audience for the much-deserved publicity of this horrific matter.

Sincerely,

Jordan Kelly

PS: Please look forward to receiving my request under the Official Information Act (OIA) for a full disclosure of all expenditure paid to Buddle Findlay in relation to this matter. I intend to publish these figures to ensure the public and all taxpayers are fully informed as to how University funds are being deployed to quash forensic evidence of malpractice.

Additionally, if you’re gifting your buddies at Buddles $500 per hour of taxpayer money to fight a consumer advocate and a journalist, the public and the media at large need to know that.

From : Jon Huxley <J.Huxley@massey.ac.nz> 
Sent : Friday, 30 January 2026 3:31 pm
To : editor@consumeraffairswriter.com
Cc : Raymond Geor <R.Geor@massey.ac.nz>; Privacy <Privacy@massey.ac.nz>
Subject : Regarding Your Recent Allegations and Appropriate Next Steps

Dear Ms Kelly,

I am writing further to your recent correspondence, including the emails sent on 23–24 December 2025 and subsequent communications copied to a range of internal and external parties.

Before addressing the matters raised, I want to acknowledge again how deeply upsetting the loss of Harry has been for you. Losing a companion animal is profoundly difficult, and I am genuinely sorry for the pain this has caused. However, I must address several serious and entirely unfounded allegations you have made about the conduct of Massey University Companion Animal Hospital staff and the integrity of our clinical processes.

1. Allegation that staff “drugged” or “pharmaceutically masked” Harry to deceive you

There is absolutely no evidence for this allegation. Harry received only those medications clinically indicated for his condition and in full accordance with accepted veterinary standards. All treatments were documented, transparent, and provided solely to support his welfare. Any suggestion that staff misled you or attempted to influence your decisions is incorrect.

2. Allegation that staff fabricated clinical information or coerced you into euthanasia

Your decision to consent to euthanasia was made following a veterinary assessment and discussion of Harry’s clinical status and prognosis. At every stage, staff acted ethically, communicated honestly, and complied fully with informed‑consent requirements. The allegation that staff fabricated clinical information or obtained your consent improperly is without foundation.

3. Allegation of an “ethical breach” or “breakdown in chain of custody” concerning Harry’s ashes

As we have previously explained, Massey University has no formal association with Pet Farewells, the cremation provider you selected. Staff assisted you only by helping identify a service that aligned with your stated preferences. Your disagreement with the provider falls entirely outside the University’s authority. No chain‑of‑custody breach occurred on Massey’s part.

4. Allegation of improper handling, withholding, or manipulation of your Privacy Act or OIA requests

Your requests have been managed diligently and in accordance with statutory requirements. Information has and will be released as it becomes available. No obstruction or delay has occurred.

Appropriate pathway for any further concerns

If you wish to pursue your concerns about veterinary care or clinical decision‑making further, the correct avenue is the:

Veterinary Council of New Zealand (VCNZ)
Website:https://vetcouncil.org.nz
Email : vetcouncil@vetcouncil.org.nz
Phone: 04 473 9600

VCNZ is the statutory body responsible for considering complaints about veterinary practice and professional conduct. They will be able to advise you on the formal complaints process.

Future Engagement with the Companion Animal Hospital

Given the seriousness and persistence of the allegations you have made — including repeated assertions of misconduct, fabrication, and unethical behaviour — I have determined that the professional relationship between you and our staff has broken down irretrievably. Under the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct, veterinarians may discontinue providing services where the therapeutic relationship has deteriorated to the point that effective and safe care can no longer be delivered. Accordingly, the Companion Animal Hospital will not be able to provide veterinary services to you in the future. Should you need it for future pets, please seek veterinary care from an alternative provider.

Given the seriousness of the allegations you have raised, and the way they have been disseminated, I have copied this correspondence to Buddle Findlay, the University’s external legal counsel. This ensures that the University’s position is clear, appropriately documented, and supported should further action become necessary.

While I understand that the loss of a beloved pet is deeply painful, the allegations you have made against individual staff members and the University are serious, unsubstantiated, and damaging. I must therefore ask that you refrain from repeating them. Should you wish to pursue your concerns further, the appropriate avenue is via the complaints process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

Yours sincerely,

Jon Huxley
Dean and Head of School
Tāwharau Ora – School of Veterinary Science
Massey University

Cc : Buddle Findlay (University Legal Counsel)