Pick v Moreton Bay Regional Council
[2012] QCAT 408
•17 August 2012
| CITATION: | Pick v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2012] QCAT 408 |
| PARTIES: | Dr Leo Pick (Applicant/Appellant) |
| v | |
| Moreton Bay Regional Council (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | GAR250-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | General administrative review matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Michelle Howard, Acting Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 17 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application for review is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | EARLY END TO PROCEEDINGS – where application for review of destruction order for dog – where dog deceased before review completed – where application now lacking in substance Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 9, 47 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
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
Moreton Bay Regional Council made a destruction order for ‘Suki’, a regulated dog under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.
Suki’s owner, Dr Pick, filed an application in the Tribunal seeking a review of the Council’s destruction order under the Act.[1] The Tribunal subsequently granted a stay of the destruction order until determination of the review. The proceeding was listed for hearing on 27 August 2012.
[1] Sections 127, 188.
Unfortunately, Suki passed away on 29 July 2012 before the scheduled hearing date. Dr Pick wishes to proceed with his application for review.
Under section 47 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may bring proceedings to an early end without a hearing by dismissing an application in some circumstances, including when a proceeding is lacking in substance.
In circumstances when a destruction order has been made and the dog concerned predeceases the review hearing, the review application no longer has any practical utility. This is because the destruction order can no longer be carried out. Therefore, the proceedings are now lacking in substance.
Although the Tribunal sympathises with Dr Pick’s loss of Suki, the application is dismissed.
0
0