Murdock v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QCAT 297

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

MURDOCK V BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [2025] QCAT 297

PARTIES:

MICHAEL SHANNON MURDOCK

(applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR455-23

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Mott

ORDERS:

The decision of the respondent is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – general administrative review – review of respondent’s decision confirming applicant’s dog to be a regulated (dangerous) dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) – whether dog seriously attacked a person entering property to retrieve personal property – whether the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) applies to the Tribunal’s decision – whether s 58(2) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) applies to the Tribunal’s decision – whether the decision is compatible with human rights

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 59, s 89, s 94, s 97, s 187, s 188

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 8, s 9, s 13, s 24, s 25, s 58

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24, s 157

Austin BMI Pty Ltd v Deputy Premier [2023] QSC 95
Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
Elze v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 195
Johnston & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2024] QSC 2
Lee v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 284
O’Donnell v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCAT 112
SQH v Scott [2022] QSC 16
Watts v Tablelands Regional Council [2012] QCAT 71

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

J Murdock

Respondent:

M Spencer – City Legal – Brisbane City Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Murdock filed an application to review a decision of the Brisbane City Council (‘BCC’) in the Tribunal on 11 July 2023. The decision Mr Murdock sought to review was an internal review decision dated 16 June 2023. The internal review decision confirmed an original decision of the BCC on 19 April 2023 to declare Mr Murdock’s dog “Edge” to be a regulated (dangerous) dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the AMA’).
The decision was made following an incident on 17 February 2023 at a property owned by a friend of Mr Murdock (the homeowner). Mr Murdock was staying at the property with Edge. Edge is a black male German Shepherd dog.
The homeowner had a verbal agreement with another friend (the complainant), allowing him to store personal property in her shed in return for mowing her lawns.
The complainant arrived at the property on 17 February 2023 to retrieve property from the shed. He entered the property through the gate.
He was bitten by Edge resulting in puncture wounds to his neck. He called the ambulance and was subsequently treated in a private hospital for his injuries.
Mr Murdock’s complaint about the decision of the BCC is that the complainant came on to the…

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 Murdock v Brisbane City 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 297
Decision Date: 4 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Tribunal was a review of a decision by the Brisbane City Council (BCC) to declare the applicant's dog, Edge, to be a regulated dangerous dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). The applicant, Ms Murdock, sought to challenge the BCC's decision on various grounds, including whether the dog had seriously attacked a person entering the property to retrieve personal property and whether the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) applied to the Tribunal's decision. The key legal issues were whether the BCC's decision was lawful, rational, and compatible with human rights.

The Tribunal considered the definition of 'seriously attack' under s 89(6) of the Animal Management Act as it stood at the time of the hearing. The definition was amended in 2024, but the Tribunal accepted the submissions of the BCC and Ms Murdock that the current law should apply. The Tribunal found that for a regulated dog declaration to be made, the local government must be satisfied that the dog had seriously attacked a person, which means causing death, grievous bodily harm, or bodily harm. The Tribunal held that the evidence showed that Edge seriously attacked the complainant, leading to bodily harm, and therefore the declaration was lawful. The Tribunal also found that the Human Rights Act 2019 did not apply to the Tribunal's decision, and the decision was compatible with human rights.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the BCC to declare Edge as a regulated dangerous dog. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the BCC's conclusion that Edge had seriously attacked the complainant, causing bodily harm. The decision was lawful, rational, and compatible with human rights. The Tribunal did not find any grounds for setting aside the BCC's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the respondent 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

Section 89 of the AMA as in force at the date of the hearing provides:89 Power to make declaration(1)Any local government may, by complying with the requirements of this part—(a)declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog (a dangerous dog declaration); or(b)declare a particular dog to be a declared menacing dog (a menacing dog declaration).(2)A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog—(a)has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or(b)may, in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal.(3)A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog, except that the attack was not serious.(4)The declaration may be made even if the dog is not in the local government’s area.(5)A declaration under this section is a regulated dog declaration.(6)In this section—animal has the meaning given by section 191.seriously attack means—(a)in relation to a person—attack the person in a way that causes the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily harm to, the person; or(b)in relation to an animal—attack the animal in a way that causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal. No issue was raised about compliance with the requirements of part 4 and it appears they have been complied with. The definition of ‘seriously attack’ in s 89(6) was amended in 2024. I invited the parties to make submissions about which version of s 89 I should apply in reviewing the decision. I accept the submissions of the BCC, which were not disputed by Ms Murdock that I should apply the law as currently in force.[7] [7]See the decisions referred to in support of those submissions: Dalgliesh v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 34; Brain v Townsville City Council [2025] QCAT 24. I also refer to Elze v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 195, [19]. Section 94 of the AMA provides in effect, that if after considering any representations and evidence the local government is satisfied the relevant ground under s 89(2) still exists, it must make the regulated dog declaration. That means, if I am satisfied Edge seriously attacked the complainant, I must make the declaration.[8] [8]Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147, [56]. The term ‘seriously attack’ in this context, means attack a person in a way that causes the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily harm to the person. The term ‘bodily harm’ has the meaning given by s 1 of the Criminal Code.[9] That is, any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort. The incident on 17 February 2023 occurred on the homeowner’s property. The homeowner had a verbal agreement with the complainant allowing him to store personal property in the shed on her property in return for mowing her lawns. At the time of the incident, Mr Murdock was staying at the property with Edge. He knew the complainant stored property in the shed.