Miojlic v City of Onkaparinga Council

The applicant, Mr. Miojlic, appealed to the Supreme Court of South Australia against a prohibition order made by the City of Onkaparinga Council. The order, issued under section 59A of the *Dog and Cat Management Act 1995* (SA), prohibited Mr. Miojlic from acquiring or being responsible for any dog for five years and required his two existing dogs to be surrendered and destroyed. The Council had applied for summary dismissal of the appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, as required by rule 212.5(2)(c)(ii) of the *Uniform Civil Rules 2020* (SA) for a single judge to summarily dismiss an appeal. The Court also considered the applicant's request for an extension of time to amend his notice of appeal and for a further stay of the prohibition order.

The Court found that despite being given an opportunity to amend his notice and grounds of appeal, the applicant had failed to comply with the rules of court. No amended notice or explanation for its absence was received. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicant had not advanced any ground of appeal with a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The Court also noted that significant fees and charges were accruing in relation to the care of the dogs, raising doubts about their recovery.

The Court dismissed the applicant's notice and grounds of appeal, as well as his application for leave to appeal. All other orders were discharged, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $1,500, payable over 12 months. No further time was granted for amendment, and the stay on the destruction order was not extended.