Halden v Sunshine Coast Council - [2015] QCAT 456

CITATION:

Halden v Sunshine Coast Council [2015] QCAT 456

PARTIES:	Jacob Lee Halden (Applicant) v
Sunshine Coast Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR195-15

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

2 November 2015

HEARD AT:

Maroochydore

DECISION OF:	Member McLean Williams
DELIVERED ON:		20 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

Application for review dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

General administrative review matters - concurrent dangerous dog declaration and destruction order pursuant to s.127A the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008; circumstances of actual attack on a person; unwillingness by owner to allow dog to be de-sexed. Circumstances of owner having no fixed abode.

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) ss. 3, 5, 59, 60, 70, 89, 127, 127A, Schedule 1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld) ss 20, 24.

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (If any):

Applicant: In person

Respondent: Ms Shanagh Jacobs

Reasons for Decision

On 25^th August 2015 Mr Jacob Lee Halden (‘the Applicant’) filed an Application to Review a Decision, seeking a review of a decision by the Sunshine Coast Council (‘the Respondent’) by which his dog, an American Staffordshire-Bull Terrier cross named Sooka, was concurrently declared to be dangerous, and ordered to be destroyed.
The Respondent made the decision under review on 3 July 2015, pursuant to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (‘the Animal Management Act’).
Section 188 of the Animal Management Act provides that decisions of this type may be externally reviewed, by QCAT. Accordingly, the original decision (subsequently affirmed by the Respondent during an internal review on 6 August 2015), now becomes - in the language of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘the QCAT Act’) - a “reviewable decision”, pursuant to Chapter 2 Division 3 of the QCAT Act. The external review is conducted by means of a fresh hearing on the merits, and QCAT now ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision-maker.[1]
[1] QCAT Act s 20(2).

Factual Background

The Applicant is the owner of three unregistered American Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Sooka (the subject of these proceedings) is an entire male dog, aged approximately two years; Leyla, is an entire female aged approximately four years; and Kimba is an entire male, aged approximately two years.
The Applicant is a tradesman. In the first half of 2015 the Applicant was residing temporarily on the Sunshine Coast yet had no intention of remaining on the Sunshine Coast. In late May 2015 Mr Halden had arranged to travel to Weipa in order to make arrangements for his re-location to that town on a longer-term basis, in order to pursue employment opportunities. The plan, at that stage, had been that Mr Halden would initially be in Weipa for approximately four weeks before his then temporarily returning to the Sunshine Coast in order to collect his belongings, and dogs, for relocation.
During the period that he was to be away in Weipa, Mr Halden made interim arrangements for the three dogs to be kennelled on the…

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 Halden v Sunshine Coast 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: [2015] QCAT 456
Decision Date: 20 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Halden v Sunshine Coast Council involved the applicant seeking a review of a decision made by the Sunshine Coast Council pursuant to section 127A of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). This section allows for the concurrent declaration of a dog as dangerous and an order for its destruction, following an incident where the dog attacked a person. The applicant contested the council's decision on the grounds of procedural fairness and the adequacy of the evidence provided. The respondent, represented by Ms Shanagh Jacobs, argued that the decision was lawful and supported by sufficient evidence.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the council's decision was legally sound and if the applicant's procedural rights were respected. This included examining whether the council had the authority to make the declaration and destruction order under section 127A, and whether the evidence presented was adequate to support such an order. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the circumstances surrounding the attack, the owner's unwillingness to allow the dog to be de-sexed, and the owner's status as a person with no fixed abode.

In dismissing the application for review, the court held that the council's decision was justified and in line with the statutory provisions. The court found that the evidence provided by the council was sufficient to warrant the declaration and destruction order, especially given the nature of the attack and the owner's non-compliance with the requested de-sexing. The court also determined that the procedural fairness requirements were met, and the council had acted within its statutory authority. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the decision of the Sunshine Coast Council was correct and dismissed the application for review.

The tribunal made an order dismissing the application for review, thereby upholding the council's decision regarding the dangerous dog declaration and destruction order. The applicant was not granted any relief, and the order of the council remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for review dismissed.

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.