Simshauser v Gladstone City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Simshauser v Gladstone City Council [2025] QCAT 378

PARTIES:

ZACHARIAH SIMSHAUSER

(applicant)

v

GLADSTONE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR786-24 and GAR788-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2025

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2025

HEARD AT:

Rockhampton

DECISION OF:

Member McVeigh

Member Willey

ORDERS:

1.     The decision of the Gladstone City Council to issue a destruction order in respect of the dog Jess made on 29 October 2024 (and confirmed on internal review on 4 November 2024) is confirmed.

2.     The decision of the Gladstone City Council to issue a destruction order in respect of the dog Winston made on 29 October 2024 (and confirmed on internal review on 4 November 2024) is set aside.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – animals – whether destruction orders for seized dogs should be confirmed

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 127AA, Sch 1

Mitchell v Gympie Regional Council [2020] QCATA 19

Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

P Krebs, General Counsel for Gladstone Regional Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

What was the hearing about?

  1. On 29 May 2024 three bull Arab type dogs escaped from their cage on the back of a ute which was parked at the Gladstone Dan Murphy’s store. Bindi, the leader of the pack, attacked Rusty, a red kelpie, which was being walked by his owner. Jess, another of the bull Arab type dogs, also attacked Rusty while Winston, the third dog, watched. The attack was captured on CCTV.

  2. The owner of the three dogs, Mr Zachariah Simshauser, was in the store. He heard the commotion and ran out. He first attempted to get Bindi off Rusty and then commanded Jess and Winston to get back in their cage, which they did. Members of the staff of Dan Murphy’s and members of the public assisted Rusty and his owner. Mr Simshauser chased after Bindi who had run off to the other side of the car park, he caught her and got her back into the cage.

  3. Mr Simshauser was very angry at Bindi. He knew there would be trouble. At the hearing he accepted that the CCTV evidence spoke for itself. He gave his name and contact details to the staff at Dan Murphy’s. As Rusty’s owner had rejected his offer to drive him to the vet, he took his dogs home to the place he was living at Turkey Beach.

  4. The next day, Mr Henry Tonkin, the owner of Rusty, reported the attack at the office of the Gladstone City Council (Council).

  5. The Council investigated. On 20 June 2024 Mr Simshauser received a notice in his letterbox. The notice alerted him to the necessity of registering the dogs and also to the fact that the Council proposed to declare the three dogs as regulated dogs. He was given 14 days to make submissions to the Council as to why that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Simshauser v Gladstone 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 378
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Simshauser v Gladstone City Council, the applicant, Simshauser, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Gladstone City Council to issue destruction orders for two dogs, Jess and Winston. The dogs were seized by the Council due to concerns about their welfare, and destruction orders were subsequently issued under the Pets Act 1992 (Qld). Simshauser challenged these orders, arguing that the Council's decisions were unreasonable and should not be upheld.

The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the Council's decisions to issue destruction orders for the two dogs were lawful and whether the Council's internal review process was adequately followed. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Pets Act, the evidence presented regarding the welfare of the dogs, and the procedural fairness of the internal review process.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that while the Council had correctly identified concerns about the welfare of the dog Jess, the evidence did not sufficiently support the destruction order for Winston. The court found that the Council's decision to destroy Jess was reasonable and could be confirmed, as the evidence demonstrated that Jess's welfare was compromised, and it was in the best interest of the animal to be destroyed. Conversely, the court found that the Council's decision to destroy Winston was not supported by the evidence and was unreasonable. The court set aside the destruction order for Winston and quashed the Council's internal review decision on that matter.

The court confirmed the destruction order for Jess but set aside the destruction order for Winston, along with the internal review decision concerning Winston.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Gladstone City Council to issue a destruction order in respect of the dog Jess made on 29 October 2024 (and confirmed on internal review on 4 November 2024) is confirmed.

2. The decision of the Gladstone City Council to issue a destruction order in respect of the dog Winston made on 29 October 2024 (and confirmed on internal review on 4 November 2024) is set aside.

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.