Piperides v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QCAT 87

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Piperides v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 87

PARTIES:

LUCAS PIPERIDES
(Applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR030-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2025

HEARING DATES:

1 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDERS:

The decision of the Respondent Council made on 20 October 2023 to issue a destruction order is upheld and the application for review is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DOG DESTRUCTION ORDERS –– where history of non-compliance with requirements of declaration – where dog seized – whether discretion to issue destruction order in respect of dog should be exercised – where the dog had been declared as a dangerous dog – where dog repeatedly not kept in enclosure, and allowed into the street to roam freely – discretionary considerations as to whether to make an order to destroy (or not destroy) the dog – effective management of regulated dogs – whether a dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of other animals, by attacking them or causing fear, to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act2008 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 59, s 97, s 118, s 125, s 127, s 131

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24

Balens v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2018] QCAT 297
Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCATA 139
Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2019] QCAT 80
Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No 2) [2019] QCATA 167
Mitchell v Gympie Regional Council [2020] QCATA 19
Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121

Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

T Christie, solicitor

Respondent:

J Crane, solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Applicant Lucas Piperides is the registered owner of two dogs named ‘Biggie Smalls’ and ‘Nixon’. Biggie Smalls was declared to be a ‘dangerous dog’ under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act2008 (Qld) (‘AM Act’) by the Respondent Council on 21 June 2023. Hence since then Biggie Smalls has been declared a regulated (dangerous) dog. He was seized on 8 October 2023 and held by the respondent since then.

Biggie Smalls is described as an Alaskan Malamute Cross. The Applicant took ownership of Biggie Smalls in or around November 2017. He was a rescue dog. The Applicant gave evidence that the dog had been abused in some way before he took ownership. Nixon, a male Bull Terrier, was also a rescue dog.

On 22 November 2022, Biggie Smalls and Nixon entered a neighbour’s property in Balmoral where Biggie Smalls attacked a cat named ‘Georgie’. That attack led to the declaration that Biggie Smalls was a regulated (dangerous) dog.

Then less than three months after the declaration took effect, on 8 October 2023, Biggie Smalls and 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 Piperides 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 87
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Piperides v Brisbane City Council, the applicant sought a review of a decision made by the Brisbane City Council to issue a destruction order for a dog named 'Biggie Smalls'. The dispute arose from the dog's history of non-compliance with the requirements of a declaration, which deemed it a dangerous dog. The key issue for the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was whether the discretion to issue a destruction order should be exercised, considering the dog's repeated non-compliance and the potential threat it posed to the community.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Animal Management (Domestic Animals) Act 2008 (Qld) and the relevant case law. It noted the importance of balancing the legislative intent behind effective management of regulated dogs with the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal had to consider factors such as the dog's history of non-compliance, its propensity to attack or cause fear to other animals, and the public interest in ensuring community safety and compliance with animal management regulations.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that the Council's decision to issue the destruction order was supported by the circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the dog's history of non-compliance and the risk it posed to other animals justified the destruction order. The Tribunal held that the discretion should be exercised in favour of the Council's decision, taking into account the legislative intent to protect the community and manage regulated dogs effectively.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application for review and upheld the Council's decision to issue the destruction order. The Tribunal's reasoning was grounded in the statutory objectives and the specific facts of the case, affirming the Council's authority to act in the interest of public safety and effective animal management.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Respondent Council made on 20 October 2023 to issue a destruction order is upheld and the application for review 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

It is common ground that section 127 of the AM Act as it was at the time 'Biggie Smalls' was seized on 8 October 2023 applies in respect to this external review. Were it otherwise there would be no right of review since that would have been the effect of the amendments because the dog was a regulated dog at the time of the incident that led to the destruction order.Review of the decision made under s. 127 of the AM Act by QCAT On a review of the decision made under s 127 of the AM Act QCAT is required to hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing on the merits to produce the correct and preferable decision: ss 19; 20(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). By s 28(3) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal: (a) must observe the rules of natural justice; (b) is not bound by the rules of evidence, or any practices or procedures applying to courts of record, other than to the extent QCAT adopts the rules, practices or procedures; (c) may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate; (d) must act with as little formality and technicality and with as much speed as the requirements of this Act, an enabling Act or the rules and a proper consideration of the matters before the tribunal permit; and (e) must ensure, so far as is practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to the tribunal to enable it to decide the proceeding with all the relevant facts. By s 24(1) of the QCAT Act, QCAT may confirm or amend the decision, or set aside the decision and substitute its own decision. When reviewing a destruction order the Tribunal is required to undertake extensive enquiry before exercising its discretion under section 127(4) of the Act.[6][6]Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCATA 139. The standard of proof required for findings of fact by the Tribunal is that I must be ‘comfortably satisfied’ having regard to the nature and consequence of the facts to be proved.[7] [7]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. In deciding this matter, the Tribunal must have regard to the public interest in deciding whether to set aside the destruction order. In Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97 (‘Thomas’) some, but little guidance was given as to how the discretion to make an order to destroy (or not destroy) a dog should be exercised. The legislative intent should inform how the discretion was exercised. Relevantly, at [16] it was held that:In the absence of any specific criteria, the legislative intent must be ascertained from the legislative scheme. Section 3 provides that the purposes of the AM Act include providing for effective management of regulated dogs.[68] Section 4 specifies how the purposes are primarily to be achieved. These means include imposing obligations on regulated dog owners; appointing officers to monitor compliance with the AM Act; and imposing obligations on some persons to ensure dogs do not attack or cause fear. Section 59 sets out that the purposes of ‘Chapter 4 Regulated Dogs’ include protecting the community from damage or injury, or risk of damage or injury, from regulated dogs;[69] ensuring that regulated dogs are not a risk to community health and safety;[70] and ensuring regulated dogs are kept in a way consistent with community expectations and the rights of individuals.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Piperides v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 87
PARTIES:	LUCAS PIPERIDES (Applicant) v BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:	GAR030-24
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2025
HEARING DATES:	1 February 2025
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Roney KC
ORDERS:	The decision of the Respondent Council made on 20 October 2023 to issue a destruction order is upheld and the application for review is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DOG DESTRUCTION ORDERS –– where history of non-compliance with requirements of declaration – where dog seized – whether discretion to issue destruction order in respect of dog should be exercised – where the dog had been declared as a dangerous dog – where dog repeatedly not kept in enclosure, and allowed into the street to roam freely – discretionary considerations as to whether to make an order to destroy (or not destroy) the dog – effective management of regulated dogs – whether a dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of other animals, by attacking them or causing fear, to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act2008 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 59, s 97, s 118, s 125, s 127, s 131 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24 Balens v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2018] QCAT 297 Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2017] QCATA 139 Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2019] QCAT 80 Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No 2) [2019] QCATA 167 Mitchell v Gympie Regional Council [2020] QCATA 19 Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121 Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	T Christie, solicitor
Respondent:	J Crane, solicitor