Brain v Townsville City Council - [2025] QCAT 24

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Brain v Townsville City Council [2025] QCAT 24

PARTIES:

MARK RAYMOND BRAIN

(applicant)

v

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR241-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 January 2025

HEARING DATE:

27 September 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

The dangerous dog declaration is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where there was an unprovoked attack on another dog – where the other dog suffered four puncture wounds – where a dangerous dog declaration was made by the Council – where the Council and the Tribunal were obliged to make a dangerous dog declaration in the circumstances.

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 89, s 89(6)

Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented by Brent Young

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Brain is the owner of a five year old female Rottweiler dog named Coco.
On 20 August 2022 a contractor attended Mr Brain’s property to do work. Mr Brain was working away from home at the time but his partner was at home and gave the contractor access through the front gate. Whilst the gate was open, Coco came out from the property.
Ms Hunter resided in the same street. She had just arrived back home in her car with her dog, a female Greyhound named Chatz. She parked on the road and was walking with Chatz towards her house when Coco approached Chatz. There was a short fight between the dogs with Chatz suffering puncture wounds to her back. The fight was in a public area, the street near the parked car, outside Ms Hunter’s property.
Ms Hunter complained to the Council.
The Council investigated and determined Coco had attacked Chatz, the attack had been unprovoked and the attack was a serious attack for the purposes of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the Act’). The Council declared Coco a dangerous dog on 23 February 2023 in result.
Mr Brain sought internal review of that decision but the earlier decision was confirmed.
Mr Brain has now applied to the Tribunal for external review of the decision to declare Coco a dangerous dog.

The evidence

In a statement of evidence dated 18 January 2023 Ms Hunter, the owner of Chatz, states she arrived home, parked, and took Chatz out from the back of the car on a lead. She saw Coco coming towards them. Coco lunged at Chatz and bit her on the back. Ms Hunter fell over trying to kick out at Coco. She crawled to her car with Chatz, opened the tailgate and got in with her dog. Coco tried to bite Chatz throughout. Ms Hunter managed to close the tailgate. Coco’s owner by then had arrived and tried to control Coco but Coco did not have a collar on, so that was difficult.
Ms Hunter did not see Coco taken away, but after…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brain v Townsville City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCAT 24
Decision Date: 9 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Brain, appealed a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal that upheld a decision of the respondent, Townsville City Council, to make a dangerous dog declaration in respect of the appellant's dog. The respondent had made a dangerous dog declaration after the dog was involved in an unprovoked attack on another dog, causing it to suffer four puncture wounds. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent was correct in making the declaration, given the circumstances of the attack. The court also needed to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in upholding the respondent's decision.

The court found that the respondent had a statutory obligation to make a dangerous dog declaration in these circumstances. The court held that the respondent had acted reasonably and lawfully in making the declaration, as the unprovoked attack on another dog demonstrated that the dog posed a danger to public safety. The court also found that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in upholding the respondent's decision. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent had failed to consider relevant matters and found that the evidence supported the respondent's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and the dangerous dog declaration was confirmed. The court held that the respondent had acted within its statutory powers and had made a lawful decision in the circumstances. The court found that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in upholding the respondent's decision, and that the evidence supported the respondent's decision. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent had failed to consider relevant matters, and held that the respondent had acted reasonably and lawfully in making the declaration.

Orders

Orders of the court

The dangerous dog declaration is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.