Winika v Moreton Bay Regional Council

The respondent, Moreton Bay Regional Council, sought the destruction of the applicant’s dog, Rusty, after it had entered the neighbour’s yard and was found by Council Officers. The Council had declared the dog as dangerous and made it subject to a destruction order. The applicant contested this decision, arguing that the dog was not aggressive on the day in question and that there was no evidence as to how the dog left its yard. The applicant also contended that there were issues concerning non-compliance with permit conditions.

The court was required to determine whether the dog posed a risk to the public and other animals that could only be dealt with by its destruction. The court found that the evidence did not conclusively establish that the dog was dangerous or posed a risk to the public or other animals. The court also found that the issue of non-compliance with permit conditions was not sufficiently addressed by the Council in its decision-making process. As such, the court set aside the decision of the Moreton Bay Regional Council made on 9 June 2015 for the destruction of Rusty.