McKenzie v Brisbane City Council

CITATION: McKenzie v Brisbane City Council [2016] QCAT 267

PARTIES:	Melissa Leanne McKenzie (Applicant)
v
Brisbane City Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR085-16

MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
HEARING DATE:	22 June 2016

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Hughes

DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    The decision of the Brisbane City Council  dated 22 February 2016 declaring ‘Pretzel’ a menacing dog is set aside and substituted with a decision to declare ‘Pretzel’ a dangerous dog.  

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION – MENACING DOG DECLARATION – whether declaration appropriate - where power to regulate dog discretionary – where circumstances of each matter must be considered – where as a matter of law a dog can be declared dangerous from isolated incident – where issue for Tribunal is whether dog ‘attacked’ or ‘seriously attacked’ as defined in relevant section - where dog bit person and caused injury – where finding of attack may be made even where dog acting protectively - where victim walking in public place with distressed child – where dog on leash with owner in presence of children – where community expects that mothers with children are able to walk in public spaces without fear of being attacked by a dog – where purposes of Act provide for responsible ownership of dogs and impose obligations on dog owners – where evidence of general disposition does not obviate that attack occurred – whether current arrangements sufficient - where effect of a declaration is to impose legally binding conditions on the dog’s owner for the dog’s life – whether declaration disproportionate or unnecessary – where declaration consistent with purposes of Act – where infringement notice is different from declaration – where purpose of declaration is not to punish but to ensure public safety – whether ‘attack’ or ‘serious attack’ – whether ‘bodily harm’ – where punctures to skin, lacerations and bruising – where attack interfered with health and comfort - where attack placed child in vulnerable situation – where dangerous dog declaration has additional condition of wearing muzzle in public - where attack would not have occurred with muzzle – where muzzle will prevent similar attacks in furtherance of objects of Act to protect the community from damage or injury and ensure that dogs are not a risk to community health or safety

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), sections 3, 4, 59, 81, 83, 89, 97, 98, Schedule 1
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), Schedule 1, section 1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), sections 20, 24

Brake v. Gold Coast City Council [2015] QCAT 52
Halden v. Sunshine Coast Council [2015] QCAT 456
Harley v. Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2012] QCAT 620
Hermanussen v. Brisbane City Council [2012] QCAT 710

Kehl v. Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

Lee v. Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 284
Lee v. Brisbane City Council (No. 2) [2012] QCATA 64

McCahon v. Gold Coast City…