Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council - [2023] QCATA 50

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Peterson & Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50

PARTIES:

CIMEROND PETERSON

SAMANTHA LISTER
(applicants/appellants)

v

ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL044-22

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR346-19
GAR395-19

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2023

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Aughterson

ORDERS:

1. Leave to appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 1, 4 and 5 is refused.

2. The appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 2 and 3 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – appeal on question of law or fact or mixed law and fact – where dangerous dog declaration – where decision upheld by Tribunal – where applicants seek to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether error of law established

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld),
s 89

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142, s 147

Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39
Harrison and Anor v Meehan [2016] QCATA 197
Lee v Lee; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited [2018] QCA 104
Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43
Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22
Seirlis & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCATA 37

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

On 9 February 2022, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the respondent to declare ‘Chocolate’, ‘Panic’ and ‘Karma’ dangerous dogs pursuant to s 89 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). The first two named dogs were owned by the first applicant, the mother of the second applicant. The third named dog was owned by the second applicant. The two separate applications for review (GAR346-19 and GAR395-19) were heard and determined together.
The two applications concerned a single attack by the three named dogs on a dog named Brutus. While there was no dispute that the attack occurred or that Brutus sustained significant injury, the applicants denied that their dogs were involved in the attack. The attack occurred on the roadway outside the residence of the owner of Brutus, Ms Flowers, and opposite the residence of the second applicant. It was the applicants’ case that at the time of the attack their dogs were chained at the residence of the first applicant, the applicants were not present at the time of the attack and that they did not go to the residence of the second applicant until sometime after the attack.[1]
[1]Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43, [30], [38], [43], [46].
In confirming the decision of the respondent,…

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 Peterson v Rockhampton 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: [2023] QCATA 50
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council was brought by the plaintiff, seeking to challenge the decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) that upheld the defendant’s declaration of a dog as dangerous under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1998. The case involved a dispute over whether a particular dog, owned by the plaintiff, posed a danger to public safety, leading to its classification as dangerous by the defendant, Rockhampton Regional Council. The plaintiff contested this classification and sought to appeal QCAT's decision to the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had established an error of law that warranted an appeal, and whether the grounds of appeal presented were sufficient to merit a review of QCAT's decision. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the QCAT's decision was based on an error of law, whether there was a failure to consider relevant evidence, and if the decision was otherwise unreasonable. The plaintiff argued that QCAT had misapplied the law in several respects, including the interpretation of the term "dangerous" and the weight given to certain evidence.

The court found that while the plaintiff had raised several grounds for appeal, they did not establish a sufficient error of law to merit an appeal. The court held that QCAT's decision was based on a proper consideration of the evidence and applicable legal principles. The court dismissed the appeal in relation to the grounds that were argued to be errors of law or mixed law and fact. However, the court refused leave to appeal on certain other grounds, finding that they did not present a valid basis for review. The court ultimately upheld the decision of QCAT, confirming the dog's classification as dangerous.

The court ordered that leave to appeal was refused for certain grounds, and the appeal itself was dismissed for other grounds. The declaration of the dog as dangerous by the Rockhampton Regional Council was thereby upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 1, 4 and 5 is refused.

2. The appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 2 and 3 is dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Peterson & Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50
PARTIES:	CIMEROND PETERSON SAMANTHA LISTER (applicants/appellants)
v
ROCKHAMPTON REGIONAL COUNCIL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	APL044-22
ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR346-19 GAR395-19
MATTER TYPE:	Appeals
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2023
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Senior Member Aughterson
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 1, 4 and 5 is refused. 2. The appeal in relation to grounds of appeal 2 and 3 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – OTHER CASES – appeal on question of law or fact or mixed law and fact – where dangerous dog declaration – where decision upheld by Tribunal – where applicants seek to appeal that decision – whether leave to appeal should be granted – whether error of law established Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 89 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 142, s 147 Bradlyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Saikovski [2012] QCATA 39 Harrison and Anor v Meehan [2016] QCATA 197 Lee v Lee; Hsu v RACQ Insurance Limited; Lee v RACQ Insurance Limited [2018] QCA 104 Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43 Piric & Anor v Claudia Tiller Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] QCATA 152 Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 Seirlis & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2020] QCATA 37
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).