IOPPOLO and CITY OF WANNEROO

The applicants, Ioppolo, sought a review of a decision by the respondent, the City of Wanneroo, which declared a dog to be a dangerous dog. The dog had attacked and injured the applicants' dog, leading to the declaration. The applicants contested the decision, arguing that the attack did not occur as described by the City of Wanneroo, and that the authorised person who issued the declaration lacked the necessary authority. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the City of Wanneroo's decision to declare the dog as dangerous was lawful. Key issues included whether the authorised person who issued the declaration was indeed authorised and whether the attack that led to the declaration met the legal criteria for such a declaration. The applicants also argued that the declaration was made without proper evidence and procedure.

The court found that the authorised person who issued the declaration was indeed authorised and had the necessary authority to do so. The court considered the evidence presented, including witness statements and the nature of the attack. The court found that the attack met the legal criteria for a dangerous dog declaration, as the dog had rushed at and harassed the applicants' dog, causing injury. The court also found that the declaration process followed proper legal procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicants' claims and upheld the City of Wanneroo's decision.

The court ordered that the declaration of the dog as dangerous remain in effect. The applicants were also ordered to pay the City of Wanneroo's costs of the proceedings. This decision reinforces the importance of proper authority and procedure in making dangerous dog declarations and underscores the legal criteria that must be met for such a declaration to be valid.