Elze v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QCAT 195

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Elze v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 195

PARTIES:
JANET ELZE

(APPLICANT)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(RESPONDENT)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR367-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

The decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 confirming the decision to declare the Applicant’s dog named ‘Evie’ to be a declared dangerous dog is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – general administrative review – review of decision of respondent confirming decision declaring the applicant’s dog to be a regulated (dangerous) dog pursuant to s 89 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) – where physical interaction between applicant’s dog and another dog at a dog park left the other dog with two wounds requiring operative treatment – whether the applicant’s dog seriously attacked the other dog within the meaning of the Act – whether the applicant’s dog bit the other dog or the wounds resulted from an inadvertent collision between the two dogs – whether Tribunal’s decision to confirm the review decision limits any of the applicant’s rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) – whether any limitation reasonable and justifiable

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 9, s 10, s 13, s 24, s 58, Schedule 1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24, s 157, s 161
Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 59, s 89, s 93, s 97, s 187, s 188, Schedule 2

Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier [2023] QSC 95
BZN v Chief Executive, the Department of Children, Youth Justice and Multicultural Affairs [2023] QSC 266
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2024] QSC 2

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

Lee v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 284

Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

T. Christie of CNG Lawyers

Respondent:

M. Spencer of City Legal - Brisbane City Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

INTRODUCTION

By an Application to review a decision filed on 1 June 2023 (‘the Review Application’), the Applicant (‘Ms Elze’) has applied to review an internal decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 (‘the Review Decision’).
By the Review Decision, the Respondent confirmed a decision of the Respondent made on 6 February 2023 (‘the original decision’) declaring that Ms Elze’s dog, ‘Evie’, was a regulated (dangerous) dog pursuant to s 89(2) of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the AMA’).
The declaration was made as a result of an incident that occurred at an off-leash dog park on 1 August 2022. There is no dispute that there was a physical interaction between Evie and another dog, a female Greyhound named ‘Betty’, at the park. The interaction left Betty with two large…

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 Elze 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: [2025] QCAT 195
Decision Date: 19 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Elze v Brisbane City Council involved the applicant, Elze, who sought to challenge the decision of the Brisbane City Council to declare their dog, Evie, as a regulated (dangerous) dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). The dispute arose after an incident at a dog park where Evie interacted with another dog, resulting in the other dog sustaining two wounds requiring surgical treatment. The primary issue before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was whether the interaction between the two dogs constituted a "serious attack" as defined by the Act, and consequently, whether Evie should be classified as a dangerous dog. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the decision to declare Evie as a dangerous dog infringed upon any rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) and whether such infringement was reasonable and justifiable.

The Tribunal carefully examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and expert opinions, to determine the nature of the interaction between the two dogs. It assessed whether the wounds on the other dog resulted from a bite by Evie or from an inadvertent collision. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence supported the finding that Evie had indeed seriously attacked the other dog, thereby satisfying the criteria under section 89(2)(a) of the Animal Management Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the human rights considerations, determining that any limitation on the applicant's rights was reasonable and justifiable under section 13 of the Human Rights Act, as it was necessary to protect public safety and the rights of other dogs.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Brisbane City Council, upholding the declaration that Evie was a dangerous dog. The reasoning was grounded in the evidence of the serious attack, the need for public safety, and the compatibility of the decision with the provisions of the Human Rights Act. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was to confirm the earlier decision of the Council, thereby finalising the administrative review process in favour of the Council.

ORDERS:
The decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 confirming the decision to declare the Applicant’s dog named ‘Evie’ to be a declared dangerous dog is confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 confirming the decision to declare the Applicant’s dog named ‘Evie’ to be a declared dangerous dog 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

In any event, for the reasons set out at paragraph [69] above, I am of the view that any interference would be reasonable and justifiable pursuant to s 13 of the HRA.Conclusion I consider that my interpretation of s 89 of the AMA has been, to the extent possible consistently with the purpose of that provision, interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, in particular, the right under s 24(1) of the HRA. Having considered the evidence and submissions made in this proceeding, and concluding that s 89(2)(a) of the AMA has been satisfied and that the limitation on the identified property right is reasonable and justifiable, the internal review decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 must be confirmed.Order For the above reasons, it is the decision of the Tribunal that:The decision of the Respondent made on 20 March 2023 confirming the decision to declare the Applicant’s dog named ‘Evie’ to be a declared dangerous dog is confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.