O’Donnell v Brisbane City Council

In O’Donnell v Brisbane City Council, the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision of the Brisbane City Council to declare one of their dogs as dangerous under the Animal Management (Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). The plaintiff argued that there was insufficient evidence to identify which of the two dogs had bitten the victim, and contested the fact of the attack on the grounds of provocation. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Land Court, which was asked to determine whether the decision to declare a dog as dangerous was discretionary and, if so, what factors should be taken into account.

The court considered whether the power to make a declaration under Part 4 of the Animal Management Act was discretionary or mandatory, and if discretionary, what factors should be considered. The court also examined whether the propensity or ordinary character of the dog was relevant to the decision. The court held that the power to declare a dog as dangerous was discretionary and that the relevant factors included whether the dog had caused fear in a member of the public, the circumstances of the attack, and the dog's ordinary character. The court held that the decision to declare a dog as dangerous was not affected by the lack of direct evidence as to which dog had inflicted the bites, and that provocation was not a relevant consideration.

The court dismissed the stay application in GAR531-21 and confirmed the declaration of Boof as a dangerous dog in GAR664-21. The court found that the declaration was supported by the evidence and was not affected by the lack of direct evidence as to which dog had bitten the victim. The court held that the propensity or ordinary character of the dog was relevant to the decision and that the declaration was justified in this case. The court also held that provocation was not a relevant consideration in determining whether a declaration should be made.

The court's decision clarifies the scope of the power to make a declaration under the Animal Management Act and provides guidance to councils and dog owners on the factors that should be taken into account when making a declaration. The decision also highlights the importance of considering the ordinary character of the dog in determining whether a declaration should be made. The final orders of the court confirm the declaration of Boof as a dangerous dog and dismiss the stay application in GAR531-21.