Rodda v Redland City Council - [2023] QCAT 151

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Rodda v Redland City Council [2023] QCAT 151

PARTIES:

JAMIE-ELISE RODDA

(applicant)

v

REDLAND CITY COUNCUL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

GAR023-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2023

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2023

DATE FINAL SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED:

27 April 2023

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Olding

ORDERS:

The decision under review is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ANIMALS – VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS – REGULATION OF COMPANION ANIMALS – OTHER MATTERS – where dog caused injury to another dog – whether grounds for dangerous dog declaration – whether attack serious

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 89(7)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1

Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

T Christie, Solicitor

Respondent:

K Johnstone, General Counsel, Redland City Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant, Ms Rodda, has applied for review of the Redland City Council’s decision, following an internal review, to confirm the making of a dangerous dog declaration in respect of her dog, Winston.

The issue to be resolved

The parties agree that:
(a)Winston caused injury to a passing dog, Toby.
(b)If the attack was “serious”, within the meaning of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), the Tribunal must affirm the decision. It would have no discretion to decide otherwise.[1]
[1] Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
Under s 89(7) of the Act, “seriously attack” means “to attack in a way causing bodily harm, serious bodily harm or death”. “Bodily harm” means “any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort”.[2]
[2]Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), Schedule 2; Criminal Code (Qld), s 1.
Accordingly, I must decide whether the attack caused any bodily injury which interfered with Toby’s health or comfort.

The veterinary report

Both parties relied upon the report of a veterinary clinic that attended to Toby on the day of the incident.
The veterinarian’s initial notes state:
has wound between shoulder blades

small scrape on left ear

an absolute pork chop so cannot examine closely

some fatty material seen in wound.
Toby was then admitted for sedation and for the wound to be clipped and cleaned.
It is not clear from the notes when Toby was first seen by the veterinarian. However, the notes indicate a “premed physical exam” took place at 1:37:24 pm with some medication administered.
By 1:39:03 pm, Toby was described as “wagging tail and BAR happy when placed in cage”. I was informed that BAR stands for “bright, alert and responsive”.
The shoulder wound was treated with seven sutures and medication. The surgery started at 2:22:04 pm, lasting only 7 minutes. The veterinarian’s notes refer to “some bruising of skin around wound – warned O [presumably, owner] may break down”.

Did Toby suffer bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort?

Mr Christie, who appeared for Ms Rodda, submitted that Toby’s injury was very minor and did not interfere with his health or comfort. He was seen to…

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 Rodda v Redland 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: [2023] QCAT 151
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Jamie-Elise Rodda applied for a review of a decision by the Redland City Council to confirm a declaration that her dog, Winston, was dangerous. The dispute arose after Winston caused injury to another dog, Toby. The primary issue for the Tribunal was whether the attack was serious enough to warrant a dangerous dog declaration under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld).

The Tribunal had to determine if the injury to Toby constituted "bodily harm" as defined in the Act, which includes any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort. The applicant argued that Toby's injury was minor, evidenced by its playful behaviour post-incident. However, the Tribunal noted that the statutory definition of "seriously attack" is broad, encompassing any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort, regardless of its severity. The Tribunal found that the veterinary treatment, which included seven sutures, indicated that the injury did interfere with Toby's health or comfort. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Council's decision to declare Winston a dangerous dog.

The Tribunal's decision emphasised its duty to apply the law as enacted by Parliament. Despite acknowledging Ms Rodda's responsible ownership of Winston, the Tribunal had no discretion to alter the outcome given the statutory definition of "bodily harm" was met.

Orders