Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council - [2025] QCAT 64

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council [2025] QCAT 64

PARTIES:

COLIN LAWSON

(applicant)

v

TABLELANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR301-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

1.     The applicant’s Application for Review filed 27 July 2022 (also recorded in the Tribunal files as having been filed 3 August 2022) is to be read and determined as an application for review of the respondent’s internal review decision made on 18 August 2022.

2.     Upon confirmation having been given under oath by the applicant that the dog known as Trigger (aka Hunter) died in January 2024, it is declared that the decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 7 July 2022, affirmed on internal review on 18 August 2022, to declare ‘Trigger’ a dangerous dog is now of no utility and accordingly is set aside.

3.     The decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 18 August 2022 to declare ‘Nasha’ a dangerous dog is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – animals – dangerous dogs – where Dangerous Dog declarations were made – where no challenge to the fact of the attack – where no challenge to it being a serious attack - where identity of dogs in question – where one of the dogs has subsequently died before the application for review had been decided

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 60, s 61, s 89, s 90, s 94, s 125, s 180, s 181, s 183, s 186, s 187, s 188

Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
Petersen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43
Peterson & Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50
Reich & Anor v Toowoomba Regional Council [2023] QCAT 47

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr L. Manning – Solicitor of P&E Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

Mr Lawson and Ms Hutchings are neighbours in a rural setting. They share a relatively long common boundary along which runs Ms Hutchings’ on which she often walks with her small dogs.
One afternoon in May 2022 Ms Hutchings was undertaking such a walk with her puppy named Samson. It was not to be a pleasant walk. Samson was seized by two large dogs and severely injured. Those injuries resulted in Samson dying that evening.
Mrs Hutchings recognised the two dogs as being those belonging to her neighbour Mr Lawson, such known as Trigger and Nasha. The following morning she raised a dog attack complaint to the Tablelands Regional Council. What ultimately followed was the Council declaring Trigger and Nasha as dangerous dogs.
Mr Lawson challenges that decision in this Tribunal. He argues that the Council’s investigation was substantially flawed and biased against him.…

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 Lawson v Tablelands 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: [2025] QCAT 64
Decision Date: 10 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council, the applicant, Lawson, challenged the decision of the Tablelands Regional Council to declare two dogs, Trigger and Nasha, as dangerous. The dispute was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). Lawson sought a review of the Council’s decision, which had been affirmed on internal review, to declare both dogs as dangerous following an attack on a person. There was no dispute over the fact of the attack or the seriousness of the incident, nor was there any challenge to the identity of the dogs involved. However, one of the dogs, Trigger, had died before the application for review was decided.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the decision to declare Trigger a dangerous dog could be reviewed and what effect, if any, the death of Trigger had on the validity of that decision. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the fate of the declaration regarding Nasha, the other dog involved in the attack.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the declaration regarding Trigger had become of no utility following the dog's death, as it could not be enforced against the dog. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that the declaration in relation to Trigger should be set aside. Regarding Nasha, since the dog was still alive, the Tribunal confirmed the decision to declare Nasha a dangerous dog, upholding the Council’s original determination. The Tribunal also clarified that Lawson's application for review should be treated as a review of the internal review decision made by the Council on 18 August 2022.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that Lawson's application for review, filed on 27 July 2022, was to be read as a review of the Council’s internal review decision. The declaration regarding Trigger was set aside due to the dog's death, and the decision to declare Nasha a dangerous dog was confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s Application for Review filed 27 July 2022 (also recorded in the Tribunal files as having been filed 3 August 2022) is to be read and determined as an application for review of the respondent’s internal review decision made on 18 August 2022.

2. Upon confirmation having been given under oath by the applicant that the dog known as Trigger (aka Hunter) died in January 2024, it is declared that the decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 7 July 2022, affirmed on internal review on 18 August 2022, to declare ‘Trigger’ a dangerous dog is now of no utility and accordingly is set aside.

3. The decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 18 August 2022 to declare ‘Nasha’ a 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.