Chadwick v Brisbane City Council - [2021] QCAT 303

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Chadwick v Brisbane City Council [2021] QCAT 303

PARTIES: BENJAMIN CHADWICK

(applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR402-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2021

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Bertelsen

ORDERS:

The Decision of the Brisbane City Council made on 13 August 2019 to destroy Diesel is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – Where dog has attacked and caused injury on three occasions to persons and other dogs– Where dog has been declared a regulated dangerous dog after first occasion– Where allegedly the dog owner does not show acceptance of responsibility for the dogs actions – Where there is ongoing non-compliance– Where after the third occasion a destruction order has been made– Where dog owner seeks review of the basis for the destruction order

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) s 3, s 4, s 59, s 89, s 127, s 188

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 19, s 20, s 23

Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2019] QCAT 80

Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121
Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97

Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2018] QCATA 140

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Thong, Legal Officer, City Legal, Brisbane City Council

Respondent:

No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

By application filed 21 October 2019, the applicant Benjamin Chadwick, seeks a review of the Brisbane City Council’s (Council) decision of 2 September 2019 for destruction of his dog Diesel, a male Alaskan Malamute which had hitherto been kept at his premises in the suburb of Forest Lake. Mr Chadwick wants a behavioural assessment of Diesel, advice on changes to fencing at the Forest Lake address and a 6-month review of Diesels progress in returning back to normal society as he so put it.

Background and evidence

Mr Chadwick had resided at the Forest Lake address since June 2014. He was registered as owner of Diesel since August 2013.

First attack

On 27 January 2015, there was an attack by Diesel, according to Council, on one Diane Cox. Circumstances, according to Ms Cox in her affidavit filed in the tribunal were that on that day while she and her granddaughter were walking her two dogs a Staffordshire bull terrier named Axel and a fox terrier cross named Jake in a park area in the vicinity of the applicant’s home they were attacked by an Alaskan Malamute which grabbed Axel by the neck and threw him around like a ragdoll. Ms Cox tried to get Axel away by pulling on his lead but instead the lead came off. Ms Cox was nipped on her calf by the Alaskan Malamute. Ms Cox stated that, ‘a male person came along during the attack and wrestled Diesel off and took him home’. She described the attacking dog as a white Alaskan Malamute with…

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 Chadwick v Brisbane 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: [2021] QCAT 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Benjamin Chadwick sought a review of the Brisbane City Council's decision to destroy his dog, Diesel, an Alaskan Malamute. The decision was made following Diesel's involvement in three separate incidents where he attacked and injured other dogs and people. The Council had previously declared Diesel a regulated dangerous dog after the first attack in 2015. Chadwick argued for a behavioural assessment of Diesel, changes to the fencing at his property, and a six-month review of Diesel's progress.

The tribunal examined the evidence presented, including affidavits and statements from the victims and witnesses of the attacks. Each incident involved Diesel being off-leash and attacking other dogs and people, causing significant injuries. The tribunal concluded that Diesel had instigated unprovoked attacks on multiple occasions, resulting in severe injuries to other animals and people. The evidence also showed ongoing non-compliance by Chadwick, including false statements about Diesel's whereabouts, inadequate fencing, and leaving Diesel in the care of an unqualified person. The tribunal found that Diesel posed a significant threat to public safety, warranting his destruction as a last resort.

Based on the overwhelming evidence of Diesel's dangerous behavior and Chadwick's failure to manage the risks, the tribunal confirmed the Council's decision to destroy Diesel. The tribunal emphasized that the destruction of a dog is a last resort under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), and it is only justified when other management measures have failed. The tribunal's decision aligns with the legislative intent to protect the community from harm caused by dangerous dogs.

Orders