Hazelgrove v Isaac Regional Council - [2018] QCAT 134

CITATION:	Hazelgrove v Isaac Regional Council [2018] QCAT 134
PARTIES:	Neville Ernest Mervyn Hazelgrove (Applicant)
v
Isaac Regional Council (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	GAR198-17
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARD ON:	15 March 2018
HEARD AT:	Mackay
DECISION OF:	Member Beckinsale
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:	The decision of the Isaac Regional Council to declare Pugsley a dangerous dog is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW -ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS - QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - declaration of dangerous dogs Animal (Cats and Dogs) Management Act 2008 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 59, s 70(1), s 89(1), s 89(2)(a), s 89(2)(b), s 89(3), s 89(7), s 95, s 127(4), s 194, s 195,1s 96(1)(a)(b), Schedule 2 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20(1), s 20(2), s 21, s 24 Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCATA 139 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336 Lee v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2012] QCATA 64 Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT:	Neville Hazelgrove
RESPONDENT:	Isaac Regional Council

REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT:	self-represented
RESPONDENT:	represented by Mr Stewart-Harris

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Darryl and Delroy Doyle were the owners of an elderly Tabby cat they named Gracie. She was a stray they adopted and they had her for over seventeen years. Mr and Mrs Doyle allege Gracie was killed by dogs in April 2016.
Following initial investigations, the Isaac Regional Council declined to take action against the dogs the Doyle’s believed were responsible for the attack on Gracie. The Doyle’s were highly critical of that decision.
The council conducted an internal review and then contracted an interstate workplace investigations firm to conduct an external review.
Subsequently the council issued Regulated (Dangerous) Dog Declarations in accordance with Section 95 of the Animal Management Act (Cats and Dogs) 2008 (the AM Act) with respect to a black Labrador named Bandit, owned by Neville Hazelgrove, and a Huskey cross named Pugsley, owned by Mr Hazelgrove’s son, Rick Hazelgrove. Upon internal review requested by the dogs’ owner, council confirmed its decision to issue Dangerous Dog Declarations.
Bandit died and Neville Hazelgrove applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision to declare Pugsley a dangerous dog. The Dangerous Dog Declaration with respect to Pugsley was issued to Rick Hazelgrove but he was not involved at any stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal. At the hearing Neville Hazelgrove said he was now the owner of Pugsley and had registered himself as owner with the council. With the consent of both parties and relying on section 62(1)[1] of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, I made a direction that “Neville Ernest Mervyn Hazelgrove is the proper applicant in these proceedings.”
[1]Which provides “The Tribunal may give a direction at any time in a proceeding and do whatever is necessary for the speedy and fair conduct of the proceeding.”
Legal Framework
In reviewing a decision, the Tribunal does…

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 Hazelgrove v Isaac 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: [2018] QCAT 134
Decision Date: 2 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hazelgrove v Isaac Regional Council involved a dispute over the classification of a dog named Pugsley as dangerous by the Isaac Regional Council under the Animal (Cats and Dogs) Management Act 2008 (Qld). The appellant, Mr Hazelgrove, the owner of Pugsley, sought judicial review of the council's decision. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT).

The primary legal issues in the case centred on the interpretation and application of specific sections of the Animal (Cats and Dogs) Management Act 2008, including sections 59, 89, and 95. The court had to determine whether the council's decision to declare Pugsley a dangerous dog was lawful and justified based on the evidence presented. Specifically, the tribunal had to consider whether the council acted within its statutory powers, whether the decision was based on proper consideration of relevant factors, and whether the decision was proportionate to the risk posed by the dog.

The tribunal found that the council's decision was lawful and justified. The evidence presented by the Doyles, who were the victims of an attack by Pugsley, demonstrated that the dog had caused significant harm to their cat. The tribunal noted that the council had followed proper procedures and considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The tribunal also found that the council's decision was proportionate to the risk posed by Pugsley, given the severity of the attack and the potential for future incidents. The tribunal rejected Mr Hazelgrove's arguments that the council had acted unreasonably or without proper evidence.

The tribunal confirmed the decision of the Isaac Regional Council to declare Pugsley a dangerous dog. The tribunal found that the council's decision was lawful, reasonable, and proportionate to the risk posed by Pugsley. The tribunal rejected Mr Hazelgrove's arguments and dismissed his application for judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Isaac Regional Council to declare Pugsley a dangerous dog is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Both the Doyles and Mr Hazelgrove were seriously unhappy with the council and the processes undertaken by the council. As the review by the Tribunal is by way of a fresh hearing on the merits, I have not needed to give consideration to the criticisms of the council nor to the internal or external reviews undertaken. Nor did I give any consideration to any proceedings in the Magistrates Court between Mr and Mrs Doyle and Mr Hazelgrove.Evidence of the AttackDelma Doyle Mrs Doyle’s evidence was that she and her husband were asleep in bed in the early morning of 24 April 2016 at 4.45am when she was woken by the sound of her cat meowing loudly. She also heard the growling of a dog. She called out to her husband and went from the bed to a window which looked onto the back yard. Although it was still dark, the yard was well lit by two sensor lights which had activated. She said she could see two dogs which had Gracie between them. A black dog had Gracie’s head in its mouth. The other was roan coloured. Mrs Doyle said she called to her husband that two dogs had Gracie. She yelled at the dogs and the black dog let Gracie go and ran from the back yard. The roan dog continued to shake Gracie violently. She heard her husband at the back door. The roan dog then ran off with her cat in its mouth. Mrs Doyle dressed and went outside. She said her husband was nowhere to be seen. She went around their yard calling out and looking for Gracie. Sometime later while she was still searching for Gracie, Mr Doyle returned to the house. He told her he had followed the dogs home. He got changed out of pyjamas and left the house to look for Gracie. Mrs Doyle continued to search in their own yard. Mr Doyle had not gone far when he called to her from across the road that he had found Gracie and to bring something to pick her up with. She went inside and brought towels to where Gracie lay which was just across the road. Mrs Doyle described Gracie as a mess appearing to have crushed ribs, a broken jaw and three broken legs. They carried her home where she died within minutes. Mrs Doyle said Mr Doyle left the house saying he would tell the dogs’ owner they had found Gracie. When Mr Doyle returned he told her the owner had been abusive. Mrs Doyle said when she found out where Mr Doyle had followed the dogs to, she realised the black dog was the same she had seen about a year ago take Gracie’s pink plastic food bowl from the back yard. On that occasion she had been in her kitchen when through the window she saw a black dog with the bowl in its mouth passing the side of the house from back to front. She quickly went out the front door and saw the black dog crossing the road. It was being followed by a tan puppy. She remembered feeling concern the puppy may get run over. She followed both dogs down the street and around the corner until she saw the black dog going through a gap under a fence into a yard. The puppy followed the black dog under the fence. She had not been able to see whether the black dog still had the bowl in its mouth.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.