A VET who carried out unnecessary operations on pets has lost his appeal against a decision to have him struck off.

Judges sitting at the Privy Council agreed with the Royal College Of Veterinary Surgeons’ disciplinary committee’s decision that Joseph Holmes, of the former Waltham Veterinary Clinic, should no longer be allowed to practice.

Today, pet owners whose animals were treated by Holmes welcomed the decision by justices in London.

As reported, the 58-year-ol,d who had worked at Waltham for 25 years, was found guilty of “mutilating” pets by carrying out a string of unnecessary operations and left his practices in Waltham and Ulceby to appeal against the decision a year ago.

However, the three Privy Council justices – Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson – agreed with the Royal College’s findings, ruling the unjustified operations amounted to “mutilation.”

They concluded that Mr Holmes had carried out numerous operations on pets without adequate pain relief and then prescribed drugs that were licensed for human use, instead of safer veterinary ones.

The committee also found him guilty of serious professional misconduct for advising and undertaking surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or considering alternative treatment options; failing to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaking procedures outside his area of competence; and failing to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist.

Persian cat breeder Julie Auckland, 40, of New Waltham – who has 15 cats and gave evidence against Mr Holmes in front of the RCVS’ disciplinary committee – said: “It is good news for the area that he can’t practice any longer.

“It has taken more than three years to get to this decision, so I am delighted about that, but the damage has already been done to my cats.”

As reported, Mr Holmes treated her cats Henry, Charlie Brown and Dream Topping.

Mrs Auckland said: “The show career of my champion stud cat, Dream Topping, who I paid £1,500 for, was cut short after his teeth were taken out – there was nothing wrong with them.”

“Dream Topping went in to have his back end shaved and Mr Holmes persuaded me he needed six of his teeth removed, and I couldn’t show him anymore.

“I asked Mr Holmes to keep the extracted teeth to show me what was wrong with them, but he threw them away.

“The committee found he didn’t use adequate pain relief when he removed any of the teeth and that must have left my cats in real pain.”

She claims Mr Holmes also recommended a third cat of hers, Charlie Brown, had teeth removed, but she refused.

She was one of two pet owners who made a series of complaints against him.

Sandra Marsden of Barrow-upon-Humber was the other complainant, after she had to have her King Charles spaniel, Jake, put to sleep to end his suffering.

The heartbreaking decision had to be taken following a series of botched and unnecessary operations – including the removal of all his teeth and his tonsils between October 2007 and March 2008.

The justices also rejected Mr Holmes’s claims the Royal College members of the disciplinary committee were biased and he was entitled to “an independent and impartial tribunal” under the European Court Of Justice.

Mr Holmes was given 28 days to appeal against the judges’ order that he should pay the college’s costs for the appeal.