Rodda v Redland City Council
[2023] QCAT 151
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Rodda v Redland City Council[2023] QCAT 151
- Add to List
Rodda v Redland City Council[2023] QCAT 151
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
- [1]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
- [2]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]
- (a)
- [3]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]
- [4]Accordingly, I must decide whether the attack caused any bodily injury which interfered with Toby’s health or comfort.
The veterinary report
- [5]Both parties relied upon the report of a veterinary clinic that attended to Toby on the day of the incident.
- [6]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.
- [7]Toby was then admitted for sedation and for the wound to be clipped and cleaned.
- [8]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.
- [9]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”.
- [10]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?
- [11]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 be wagging its tail, excitable and “carrying on like a pork chop”. It is clear from Toby’s actions, Mr Christie submitted, that Toby was not in pain or discomfort.
- [12]The difficulty for Ms Rodda is that the bar for whether an attack is serious is relatively low. Any bodily injury that interferes with the victim’s health or comfort is sufficient. ,Although it may be implicit that an insignificant wound would not meet the definition, there is no indication in the wording of the definition that the interference need be permanent, ongoing or severe.
- [13]The evidence of Toby being “an absolute pork chop” is inconclusive – it could equally support an inference of discomfort. The notes indicating he was wagging his tail and bright, alert and responsive do not indicate to what extent sedation or pain relief may have influenced that demeanour.
- [14]In my view, the matter comes down to this: Toby has suffered an injury for which, in the professional opinion of a veterinarian, surgery involving seven sutures and associated medication was appropriate. In the absence of further contrary evidence, I find it impossible to conclude that an injury requiring such treatment – even if at the minor end of the spectrum of injuries and treatment - did not interfere with Toby’s health or comfort. An inference that, without such treatment, Toby’s health or comfort would be at risk could be drawn. But even without drawing such an inference, I am satisfied that Toby’s injury meets the statutory definition of bodily harm. In the absence of other contrary evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that a wound requiring veterinary treatment, including seven sutures on the veterinarian’s advice, will interfere with the patient’s health or comfort.
- [15]It follows the decision to make the dangerous dog declaration must be affirmed.[3]
Footnotes
[1]Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
[2]Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), Schedule 2; Criminal Code (Qld), s 1.
[3] This decision is not a reflection on Ms Rodda as a dog owner. To the contrary, the evidence suggests Ms Rodda is a responsible dog owner. However, my duty is to apply the law as enacted by Parliament, which, as I have indicated, does not give the Tribunal any discretion to decide otherwise in the circumstances of this matter.