Chaplin v Sunshine Coast Regional Council - [2020] QCATA 83

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Chaplin v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2020] QCATA 83

PARTIES: KARA ROSE CHAPLIN

(appellant)

v

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

APL357-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR226-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2020

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson (Presiding)
Member Kanowski

ORDER:
The decision of the Tribunal made on 29 November 2019 is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – WRONG PRINCIPLE – GENERALLY – where in review proceeding tribunal commented on character of original decision-maker – where tribunal said original decision-maker’s decision should not be lightly overturned – whether irrelevant matter taken into account – whether wrong principle applied

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – OTHER FINDINGS – where tribunal found a risk of dog attacking humans – whether there was evidence to support that finding

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 127(4)

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

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Appellant:

N Edridge instructed by Michael Faltermaier Lawyers

Respondent:

G Lalor, Supervisor, Prosecutions and Reviews, Sunshine Coast Regional Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an appeal by Ms Chaplin against the decision of the Tribunal made on 29 November 2019 to confirm the decision made by Sunshine Coast Regional Council to destroy her dog named Sarge.[1]
[1]Chaplin v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2019] QCAT 371.

Background

Noosa Shire Council declared Sarge a dangerous dog in 2016, after he fatally attacked another dog.
In 2018, while out for a run with Ms Chaplin’s partner, Sarge was involved in a confrontation with another dog. The other dog was not injured. However, Sarge was not muzzled at the time. Muzzling of a declared dangerous dog in public is required under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘Animal Management Act’).[2]
[2]Schedule 1, s 3.
There was a third incident, one evening in 2019. Unknown to Ms Chaplin, her garage roller door had not fully closed after her children left some toys lying under it. Also, an internal door between the garage and the house had not been shut. Sarge got out. As he had been indoors, he was not muzzled. He attacked and seriously injured a dog that was being walked nearby on a leash.
Sunshine Coast Regional Council then decided to destroy Sarge (the decision has not yet been carried out). The decision was made by Mr Michael Gilbert. He is a Senior Response Service Officer authorised by the Council to make such decisions. Ms Chaplin then applied for a review of the destruction decision. Mr Guy Lalor, a Council supervisor, conducted the internal review. He confirmed the destruction decision.
Ms Chaplin next applied for a…

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 Chaplin v Sunshine Coast Regional 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: [2020] QCATA 83
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chaplin v Sunshine Coast Regional Council, the applicant sought to appeal a decision made by the tribunal, which in turn was a review of a decision made by the Council. The primary issue at hand was whether the tribunal had applied the correct legal principles in its review of the Council's decision, particularly in light of comments made about the original decision-maker and the weight that should be given to their decision. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the tribunal had taken into account irrelevant matters and whether there was sufficient evidence to support its findings regarding the risk of a dog attacking humans.

The court considered the general principles of appellate review, particularly the limited circumstances in which an appellate court may interfere with the findings of fact made by a tribunal. It examined whether the tribunal had applied an incorrect principle in its review, specifically regarding the weight to be given to the original decision-maker's decision. The court also evaluated the evidence presented to determine if it was sufficient to support the tribunal's findings about the risk posed by the dog.

Upon review, the court determined that the tribunal had not applied an incorrect principle in its review of the Council's decision. The comments made by the tribunal about the original decision-maker did not influence the outcome of the review. Additionally, the court found that the tribunal's findings regarding the risk of the dog attacking humans were supported by the evidence. Consequently, the court confirmed the decision of the tribunal made on 29 November 2019.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Tribunal made on 29 November 2019 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.