Hartmann v Moreton Bay Regional Council

[2015] QCAT 9

CITATION: Hartmann v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2015] QCAT 9

PARTIES:	Kirsty Ann Hartmann (Applicant)
v
Moreton Bay Regional Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR373-14

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: On the papers

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Acting Senior Member Howard

DELIVERED ON: 14 January 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The application to stay a decision to destroy the dog ‘Roxy’ is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

STAY APPLICATION-order sought to prevent destruction of dog- where no current order for destruction- whether proceedings lacking in substance

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 47

APPEARANCES:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Moreton Bay Regional Council wrote to Ms Hartmann advising her of its intention to declare ‘Roxy’ a menacing dog and suggesting that Roxy would be euthanased if certain steps were not taken as specified.

2. Ms Hartmann filed an application for a stay of the decision to euthanase Roxy. Ms Hartmann states in her application that she has also sought review of the decision with the Moreton Bay Regional Council. The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (the Act) provides that the Tribunal may make orders to stay an original decision pending internal review by a council in certain circumstances.[1]

   [1]Section 184.

3. In the circumstances of this proceeding, it is not at all clear to me that a decision has been made which may be stayed.  In any event, if there was such a decision, the Moreton Bay Regional Council has since written to Ms Hartmann advising that it does not intend to euthanase Roxy and will hold her in its care until Ms Hartmann can effectively enclose her. The Council has provided a copy of its letter setting out these matters to the Tribunal.

4. As a consequence, Ms Hartmann was requested to advise whether she proposes to pursue her application for a stay in the Tribunal. She advised that she did and would provide written details to the Tribunal. The only further details provided relate to the proposed menacing dog declaration currently being considered by the Council.

5. Under s 47 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may dismiss a proceeding, or part of it, which it is satisfied is lacking in substance. There is no current decision on foot to destroy the dog, Roxy. There is accordingly no utility in the stay application, (even assuming that it was properly made). I am satisfied that the application is lacking in substance. Therefore, I dismiss the stay application.