Thomas v Ipswich City Council

CITATION: Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2014] QCAT 681

PARTIES:	Christine Mary Thomas (Applicant)
v
Ipswich City Council (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: GAR334-14

MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE: 28 November 2014

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Member Allen

DELIVERED ON: 17 December 2014

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: 1.    The decision of the Ipswich City Council is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – dog destruction order – where declared dangerous dog attacked person entering yard of residence – where dog not kept in enclosure

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 ss 59, 125, 127

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Christine Thomas represented by Ms Julia Jasper of Couper Geysen, Solicitors

RESPONDENT: Ipswich City Council represented by Mr Anthony Dunleavy, in-house solicitor

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mrs Thomas is the registered owner of Bruce, a bull Arab cross, brindle, white, male who was made subject to a destruction order by the Council on 28 August 2014. Mrs Thomas sought an internal review of that decision. The review decision of 17 September 2014 confirmed the destruction order. Mrs Thomas has applied to the Tribunal to review the decision to destroy Bruce.

2. Bruce was declared a dangerous dog on 30 March 2010 following an attack on a Council officer on 4 March 2010.  There were some submissions that the dangerous dog declaration should not stand because there was an application to review the decision, which was not properly considered, and Mrs Thomas was not given an opportunity to seek a review to the Tribunal. The time for a review by the Tribunal of that decision has now passed and the Tribunal accepts the dangerous dog declaration of Bruce as valid. 

3. As a result of the dangerous dog declaration Mrs Thomas was required to do the following:-

   a)    have Bruce de-sexed;

   b)    implant him with prescribed permanent identification device;

   c)    he must be muzzled in a public place and must be under the effective control someone;

   d)    construct an enclosure which Bruce was to be kept in;

   e)    place dangerous dog signs around the enclosure or place where Bruce is usual kept; and

   f)     Bruce must not be usually kept at a place other than that stated on the permit and any change of residential address of the owner must be notified

4. The dangerous dog declaration notice issued on 30 March 2010 stated that the enclosure for the dog must be maintained at or on the address in the registration notice for the dog and must be child proof and stop the dog leaving the enclosure.

5. Council records note that signs were up on 28 May 2010 and the enclosure constructed for Bruce was considered adequate following an inspection by Council officers on 2 June 2010, though Bruce was still to be chipped and de-sexed. Photos evidence the signs and completed enclosure.

6. Following an inspection on 31 May 2011 a non-compliance notice was issued to Mrs Thomas because Bruce had not been de-sexed nor had an identification device been implanted. At that…