Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2024
  4. Millar v Brisbane City Council - [2024] QCAT 93

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Millar v Brisbane City Council[2024] QCAT 93

Millar v Brisbane City Council[2024] QCAT 93

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Millar v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCAT 93

PARTIES:

andrew john Millar

(applicant)

v

Brisbane city council

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR083-19

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

28 February 2024

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Richard Oliver

ORDERS:

  1. The decision of the respondent is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – animals – dangerous dogs – where unprovoked attack causing physical injury and fear – where two dogs were attacked on separate occasions at a local dog park – where allegations of provocation by victim dogs on both occasions – where provocation confined to growling and baring of teeth – where respondent satisfied that the attack was unprovoked – where attacks on two separate occasions in close proximity to each other – whether the applicant’s dog was subject to provocation in each attack by the victim dogs – whether applicant’s dog was defending itself – whether attack caused bodily harm – whether serious attack by applicant’s dog – whether a dangerous dog declaration should be made on review

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 89, s 94, s 186

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), Schedule 1, s 1

Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147

Kehl v Board of Engineers [2010] QCATA 58

Lee v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 284

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr Spencer, in-house lawyer for the Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    Mr Millar is the owner of a staffordshire dog named Jack. On 19 May 2018 and 21 May 2018 Mr Millar took Jack to a dog park at Whites Hill in Brisbane. Whilst at the park on 19 May 2018 Jack and another dog, Cooper, owned by Renee Stone, had an altercation resulting in a puncture wound to Cooper which drew blood. Then on 21 May 2018, when at the same dog park, there was another altercation between Jack and a dachshund dog, Alfred, owned by Rosie Sutton and Kate McCarthy. Jack inflicted a puncture wound to Alfred in that altercation.
  2. [2]
    As a consequence of complaints received about these two events, Brisbane City Council officers carried out an investigation. The result of the investigations was that on 13 September 2018 the Council issued a Dangerous Dog Declaration in respect of Jack under s 94 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘AM Act’). The initial Dangerous Dog Declaration was withdrawn to allow Mr Millar to obtain further information for the purposes of lodging a response to the initial Proposed Dangerous Dog Declaration. Having considered this, the Council issued a further Dangerous Dog Declaration on 26 October 2018, which is the operative decision.
  3. [3]
    An internal review into that decision was conducted by Troy Casey. On 14 February 2019, Mr Casey confirmed the original decision of the Council. Under s 186(4) of the AM Act, as the original decision was confirmed, for the purposes of this review application the original decision is taken to be the internal review decision.
  4. [4]
    On 1 March 2019 Mr Millar applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Council’s decision. The Tribunal’s function in reviewing an administrative decision is to consider the matter afresh on the material filed in the proceeding and any further evidence given at a hearing, and to then produce the correct and preferable decision.[1] In coming to the correct and preferable decision it is worth reciting, for Mr Millar’s benefit,[2] what the then Deputy President of the Tribunal, Judge Kingham, said in Kehl v Board of Engineers[3] about how the review is conducted:
  1. [9]
    …….. The Tribunal’s role in exercising review jurisdiction is to reconsider the original decision and to make the correct and preferable decision. The review is conducted on the merits, by way of a fresh hearing. Unlike judicial review, the Tribunal’s function is to review the decision – not the process by which it was arrived at, nor the reasons given for making it. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not required to identify an error in either the process or the reasoning that led to the decision being made. There is no presumption the original decision is correct.
  1. [10]
    The Board provided a detailed statement of its reasons, supported by documents including Board policies, a search of the Register entries for Mr Taraborrelli; the complaint; correspondence between the Board and Mr Taraborrelli and the Board and Mrs Kehl; and correspondence with and the report by an investigator appointed to assist the Board, Mr Van de Hoef. Later it supplemented this material by providing relevant extracts from minutes of Board meetings during which the matter was discussed and the brief provided to Mr Van de Hoef. The basis upon which the Board made its decision is set out in the statement of reasons and supporting documents and fulfils the Board’s obligation to assist QCAT to make its decision on review.
  1. [11]
    The documents requested by Mrs Kehl go to the process of decision making. In her submissions, Mrs Kehl indicated evidence of the material upon which decisions were made and the time taken for deliberation are relevant to examining the thoroughness of the Board’s consideration of her request. She submitted the information about the Registrar’s position is relevant to whether the Board had inappropriately delegated too much of its statutory responsibility to its administrative officer. She stated:
  1. ‘All of the materials requested, as it relates to the Kehl decision is evidence of thorough deliberation and a proper decision. Without them, the Board runs the risk of having made a less than satisfactory decision.’
  1. [12]
    Whether the Board thoroughly deliberated or not does not bear on QCAT’s function on review. QCAT stands in the shoes of the Board and is asked to exercise the Board’s powers and discretions. There is no presumption that the Board’s decision was correct and Mrs Kehl need not demonstrate any error in the Board’s process for making the decision or the reasons it gave for doing so. QCAT does not have to find a legal or factual error in order to make a different decision. It is enough for QCAT to conclude that another decision is the correct and preferable decision. When the matter is heard on the 18th of October, Mrs Kehl will have the opportunity to ask QCAT to consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against Mr Taraborrelli. She will suffer no prejudice either in her preparation for the hearing or in the conduct of the hearing itself if she does not have access to the documents she has requested.
  1. [5]
    There is no dispute that Jack was in the dog park on both the 19th May and 21st May 2018. There is no dispute that there was some interaction between Jack and Cooper and also between Jack and Alfred. Ms Sutton and Ms McCarthy also had another dachshund with Alfred, Nacho. The evidence suggests that Jack chased after Nacho, but it seems he was not physically harmed.
  2. [6]
    The issues for decision in this review, as articulated by the Council in its written submission, are as follows:
    1. Did Jack attack another dog or alternatively, did he act in response to an attack from the other dogs (self-defence);
    2. If there was an attack, was the attack a ‘serious attack’?
  3. [7]
    The reference to self-defence is having regard to what her Honour Holmes JA (as she then was) said in Lee v Brisbane City Council:[4]

It will be a question of fact whether what a dog does amounts to an attack for the purposes of the section, and in deciding that question, hostile behaviour by the animal which is the victim may be relevant. There may be a factual issue, for example, as to whether one dog biting another is attacking or simply defending itself (although where there has been no physical contact preceding the bite, defence is a less likely conclusion). But as a matter of law, there is nothing in section 89 which precludes a finding of attack where the behaviour of the dog in question is a response to aggression from its victim. To put it another way, it is not a prerequisite to a finding of serious attack by one dog on another that there be finding that the second dog has itself done nothing which could be described as an attack.

  1. [8]
    With those comments in mind, it is necessary to examine the evidence of what occurred at the dog park on the two days the alleged attacks occurred, accepting that there was some interaction between the animals. The best evidence of course is from those who witnessed the incidents, and this includes Mr Millar.

19 May 2018 Incident

  1. [9]
    Mr Millar and Jack were already at the dog park when Ms Stone arrived with Cooper and her other dog, a Rhodesian ridgeback named Sasha. Cooper is described as a Bichon Frise breed in her statement, although there might be some confusion about this. Mr Sweeney from the rapid response team of the Council described him as a Moodle, being a poodle/maltese cross. The actual breed is irrelevant to my consideration. A photograph was taken by Mr Sweeney on the day of the incident which depicts a small fluffy white dog. Having searched for a photo of a Bichon Frise dog, it is evident that the features of the dog in the photograph are similar to photographs on the breed seen on the Internet.[5] Exhibit 13 also shows a puncture wound and blood around the wound in the fur of Cooper.
  2. [10]
    Miss Stone provided an affidavit to the Council dated 12 April 2019. It is reasonable to accept that the events described in her affidavit would be reasonably fresh in her mind at the time she made it. It is also consistent with the evidence given by Mr Sweeney who attended her premises about an hour or so after the incident and recorded what occurred in his notebook. He gave evidence of that discussion during the hearing. The notes are concise but relevantly he recorded that:
  • Ridgeback ran off.
  • another dog attacked poodle.
  • staffy attacking dog.
  • repeat attempts went for neck.
  1. [11]
    This of course is not evidence of the fact of what occurred but demonstrates consistency with Miss Stone’s version. Returning to what she said in her statement:
  1. 7.
    When I opened the second gate to let my dogs enter the park proper, Sasha ran off to the far side of the park while Cooper stayed closer to where I was standing.
  1. 8.
    Before I could even realise that there was a dog approaching Cooper, I saw another dog which I recognised as a dark coloured Staffordshire bull terrier [staffy] attacking Cooper with its mouth around the neck of Cooper.
  1. 9.
    I started yelling at the staffy trying to get it off Cooper and eventually because it wasn't taking any notice of me I had to kick it to get it off Cooper
  1. 10.
    My dog Cooper was yelping in fear and possibly also from pain as a result of the attack.
  1. 11.
    I yelled at a male person standing off to one side who I believed might have been the owner of the staffy to come and get his dog.
  1. 12.
    The male person, who I had never seen before and did not know then started to blame Cooper for the attack saying that it was my dog's fault for being a yappy small dog.
  1. 13.
    As I was talking to this person the staffy again attacked Cooper grabbing him around the throat area again. The male person who I believe was the owner of the staffy again made no effort to separate the two dogs and I was forced to get the staffy away from Cooper a second time.
  1. [12]
    Ms Stone also confirms, from her observation of the incident, that there is no doubt in her mind that the incident caused fear to Cooper. In her further oral evidence to the Tribunal, she confirmed that Mr Sweeny attended her home and took details of the incident. She confirmed that the photo he produced to the Tribunal[6] was in fact a photo of Cooper. She did not seek any veterinary treatment for Cooper. There are no other witnesses to corroborate Ms Stone’s evidence.
  2. [13]
    Although Mr Millar accepts there was some interaction between the dogs, he says that the whole incident was instigated by Cooper. Mr Rashleigh, an animal attack officer with the Council, had a discussion with Mr Millar about the incident on 1 June 2018. During that conversation, which was recorded,[7] Mr Millar asserted that Cooper attacked Jack and he fought back.[8] He also made the following statements:
  • The small dog was aggressive and yapped and growled in our dog’s face. It got-you know, it was on the wrong side of the argument.[9]
  • Once it picked a fight it (Cooper) couldn’t defend itself properly.[10]
  • All I can say is that the dog (Cooper) started the argument and my dog defended itself.[11]
  • At the time they were close together, my dog was assailed or attacked – which is the right term, because growling at another dog’s an attack. He was beset upon by two aggressive dogs who happened to be smaller dogs; my dog responded very quickly, and their dogs were on the receiving end, so to speak.[12]
  • Because I didn’t say the word “attack”, I said at all stages their dogs growled and barked in his face.[13]
  1. [14]
    It is evident from Mr Millar’s discussion with Mr Rashleigh that he does not assert Cooper actually engaged in a physical attack on Jack. Barking and growling is as high as any provocation gets, if it is that. Also, he refers to two dogs: however, Sasha was free running according to Ms Stone.
  2. [15]
    In his statement dated 24 May 2019[14] Mr Millar is critical of Ms Stone for keeping her dogs in the small holding yard before letting run in the larger area. This, he says, caused Cooper to become extremely agitated. Also, he says Sasha and Jack were trying to play but Cooper kept trying to separate them. It got to the point where Cooper was attacking Jack by “growling in his face and baring his teeth”. He does not concede that Cooper was bitten because of the absence of two puncture wounds. If there was a bite, there should be evidence of teeth marks from both the top and bottom jaws. Irrespective of that, there is certainly evidence of at least one puncture wound, consistent with a bite, in the photograph.
  3. [16]
    Mr Millar cross-examined Ms Stone to effectively put his version of events. However, she did not deviate from her evidence, other than conceding she said ‘wounds’ in her statement and that may be incorrect because the photo shows only one wound.[15] Also, she did not consider it necessary to take photos as the Council officer did that. I should also record that after the photograph was produced by Mr Sweeney, Ms Stone was recalled to confirm the photo was of Cooper and give Mr Millar an opportunity to ask her about that, and anything else he might want to pursue.[16]
  4. [17]
    The determination of whether Jack or Cooper was the aggressor will depend on which evidence is the more probative given there are direct contrary versions of what occurred. Generally, such conflicts are resolved or assisted in the resolution by having regard to other objective evidence. Both Mr Millar’s and Ms Stone’s written statements are fairly contemporaneous to the events that happened. In Ms Stone’s case her version is somewhat corroborated by what was recorded by Mr Sweeney within hours of the event. This perhaps gives it more weight. Further there is probative evidence of a bite/puncture with associated blood in the photograph. To assist in resolving this credit issue I will also have regard to the circumstances of the second incident on 21 May 2021 which demonstrated similar, if not the same, behaviour by Jack discussed later in these reasons.

21 May 2018 Incident

  1. [18]
    About 4:30pm Ms McCarthy and Ms Sutton took their two dachshund dogs to the dog park. Alfred was the younger, about 6 months old. On entering the park, she noticed after a little while a staffy dog running around the park in what appeared to be an agitated state and rushing up to other dogs. Then, without any warning the staffy, identified as Jack, rushed up to Alfred and grabbed him by the throat. She pulled Jack off Alfred and let him go. At this time Ms Sutton was caring for Alfred but once Jack was let go, he went after Nacho and grabbed him as well. It is unclear whether Nacho suffered any injury.
  2. [19]
    Mr Millar came over to them and there was a short discussion where Mr Millar was told what had happened. Ms McCarthy says that Mr Millar said words to the effect to both of them that “its because he doesn’t like little dogs”. Ms Sutton followed him as he walked away and took a photograph of both Mr Millar and Jack. It is attached to Ms Sutton’s statement. When she got to examine Alfred, she saw the puncture wound under his neck in the throat area. A photograph is attached to Ms McCarthy’s affidavit.
  3. [20]
    Ms Sutton has given similar evidence in her affidavit. She says that the first time she became aware of the staffy was when he rushed at Alfred and:

...grabbed him by the throat and started shaking him backwards and forwards, lifting Alfred off the ground by the throat. As a result, Alfred became frantic, yelping in apparent fear and probably pain.

  1. [21]
    She saw Ms McCarthy go to rescue Alfred from the situation and then saw Jack go after Nacho.
  2. [22]
    When Mr Millar was confronted about his dog attacking Alfred, Ms Sutton says that his response was that he didn’t see the incident and that “he doesn’t like small dogs”. As Mr Millar was walking away she took the photograph referred to above. She then goes onto say that he grabbed the phone from her hand and threw it across the dog park. I cannot see where Mr Millar has challenged this evidence in his written documents or his evidence at the Tribunal.
  3. [23]
    There was a witness to these events. Ms Clare Mitchell was in the dog park at the time and has provided a statement. She attended the hearing and was cross-examined. She noticed that Jack was running around the park and rushing up to other dogs. She felt uncomfortable about this. She saw Jack run straight up to the dachshunds. She heard one of the dachshunds scream then saw one of them run from the group of people around them, presumably Ms McCarthy and Ms Sutton, with Jack chasing it and grabbing hold of it in its mouth.
  4. [24]
    Because Ms Mitchell has had some veterinary nurse experience, she went to Alfred to render some assistance. She noted the puncture wounds to the dog, but conceded in cross-examination she was not sure if there were one or more, given the lapse of time since the incident. She spoke to Mr Millar and says he became very aggressive and he assaulted her with a tree branch, which he emphatically denies.
  5. [25]
    Each of the witnesses to the Alfred incident were cross-examined by Mr Millar. Again, apart from making concessions about wounds being only one wound shown in the photographs of Alfred, they each stood by their recollection of events. Mr Millar attempted to make something of the fact that neither Ms McCarthy or Ms Sutton could recall in whose name the dachshunds were registered, but this is irrelevant to the Tribunal’s function in this review application. They were in possession of the dogs, regarded the dogs as theirs and registration is for the purposes of compliance with the Council’s regulations.
  6. [26]
    In fact, Mr Millar did not put any positive case or contrary version to either witness. Although he said in his recorded interview with Mr Rashleigh on the 25 May 2018 that “her dog was yapping aggressively”, he did not identity which dachshund was doing this. Also he said there was a melee of four or five dogs. There is no independent evidence to suggest there were more dogs involved other than the dachshunds and Jack. He seems to assert that Alfred was the aggressor but does not provide any particulars similar to those asserted with respect to Cooper. as to how he was aggressive.
  7. [27]
    He asserts that Alfred picked the fight, and lost, but again does not particularise Alfred’s behaviour. In fact, he seems unsure about this because he said “he got the feeling” that Ms McCarthy’s dog picked the fight. He also conceded he did not know for a fact that Jack did bite Alfred, suggesting he did not see what actually happened. He also said he did not see what she alleged, as being the puncture wounds.[17] I conclude that Mr Millar’s evidence of what he says happened is, vague and general. This is in contrast to the evidence Ms McCarthy and Ms Stone who were right there.
  8. [28]
    He contends that Ms Mitchell’s evidence should not be accepted because, it seems, she was a complainant in an assault charge against him arising out of the incident which went to a jury trial and Mr Millar was acquitted. This of itself does not render her an unreliable witness.
  9. [29]
    In any event Ms Mitchell did not say she saw the initial attack on Alfred but was alerted to the incident by the dog’s, or a dog’s, scream. However, she did see Jack chase after Nacho. As to the incident involving Alfred, that is, of Jack grabbing him or what caused Jack to grab him, Ms Mitchell’s evidence carries little weight, but it is consistent with other witnesses.

Findings

  1. [30]
    As to the incident involving Cooper, I am satisfied that Jack was the aggressor. I prefer the evidence of Ms Stone for the following reasons:
    1. The photograph of Cooper, exhibit 13, taken some hours after the incident shows a puncture wound which appears to be from a tooth, consistent with what Ms Stone said about the incident;
    2. She made a complaint the Council and Mr Sweeney’s record of the incident is consistent with Ms Stone’s evidence;
    3. The oral evidence she gave at the hearing in response to questions by Mr Millar were consistent with her statement, straight forward and without equivocation. She made concessions where appropriate, i.e. about the wound being singular.
    4. She reaffirmed, in cross-examination, her evidence as recorded in her statement without hesitation.
    5. In particular I take note of the fact that even on Mr Millar’s case Cooper did not physically attack or jump on Jack. If Cooper did engage in the behaviour as described by Mr Millar, growling and baring his teeth, it would have been a simple matter for Mr Millar to remove Jack from the scene.
    6. More importantly, I rely on the consistency between Jack’s behaviour on the second incident on 21 May 2018 and this behaviour on 19 May 2018. It is not positively asserted by Mr Millar that Alfred engaged in any behaviour that would likely provoke Jack to attack him nor Nacho. The evidence, or particulars, from Mr Millar in respect of this incident is sorely lacking.
    7. I considered Ms Stone to be an impressive witness and willing to assist the Tribunal by being recalled to give further evidence.
  2. [31]
    The circumstances involving the second incident on 21 May 2018 have been corroborated by the evidence of both Ms McCarthy and Ms Sutton. As to Jack’s general demeanour, this has been corroborated by Ms Mitchell. Even without her evidence there is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that this incident occurred as described by Ms McCarthy and Ms Sutton. I also take into account, as I did above, that Mr Millar has not put forward a contrary case, providing any particulars of any conduct on the part of Alfred or Nacho which would have caused or provoked Jack to attack them. There is no assertion of Alfred growling or baring teeth in Jack’s face as in the case of Cooper.
  3. [32]
    Despite their not being sure who the registered owner of Alfred was, the cross-examination of Ms McCarthy or Ms Sutton did not in any way discredit them. They were both forthright in the responses to questions. The mere fact that Ms McCarthy’s statement came late in the day did not impact her credit. I accept their evidence without reservation.
  4. [33]
    As I said Ms Mitchell’s evidence was not directly on point in respect of the attack on Alfred. Therefore, it really is of no assistance, but I do accept her evidence about Jack’s general behaviour before and after the attack. Once again, she gave her evidence in a forthright manner when questioned and was impressive as a witness.
  5. [34]
    Finally, there is no objective evidence produced by Mr Millar to corroborate any part of his version of what occurred on both days.
  6. [35]
    My conclusion is that Jack did engage in an unprovoked attack on Cooper and on Alfred.

Were the attacks serious.

  1. [36]
    Having been satisfied that Jack attacked both Cooper and Alfred, the next question is whether the attack was serious. Here I am guided by section 89 of the AM Act. It provides:
  1. (1)
    Any local government may, by complying with the requirements of this part –
  1. (a)
    declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog (a dangerous dog declaration); or
  1. (b)
    declare a particular dog to be a declared menacing dog (a menacing dog declaration); or
  1. …
  1. (2)
    A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog:
  1. (a)
    has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or
  1. (b)
    may in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or other animal, seriously attacked, or acted in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal.
  1. (3)
    A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog except that the attack was not serious.
  1. …
  1. (7)
    In this section seriously attacked means to attack in a way causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death.
  1. [37]
    Bodily harm is defined in the dictionary to the AM Act as:

bodily harm has the meaning given by the Criminal Code, section 1.

  1. [38]
    Section 1 of the Criminal Code provides that bodily harm “means any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort”. The question whether this is the case here is a finding of fact. Having regard to the evidence of the owners of both Cooper and Alfred I am satisfied that the injuries sustained by the dogs fall within definition of bodily harm. Cooper has a distinct puncture wound, which was severe enough to draw blood.
  2. [39]
    Alfred also had a distinct puncture wound to his neck clearly depicted in the photographs attached to Ms McCarthy’s affidavit. If there is any doubt about that, he was seen by a veterinary surgeon on 22 May 2018, Dr Jonsson, who examined the wound to the ventral neck and recorded that it was “weeping last night”.[18] He administered medication.
  3. [40]
    It is plain on the evidence that both dogs, Cooper and Alfred, suffered bodily harm within the definition under the AM Act.
  4. [41]
    If a declaration was to be made it was submitted by Mr Millar that the declaration be confined to a menacing dog declaration under s 89(1)(b) of the AM Act. As the injury involved bodily harm, it was by definition a ‘serious attack’ and therefore could not be downgraded to menacing.[19]

Conclusion

  1. [42]
    Based on these findings of fact, I am satisfied that the requirements of s 89 of the AM Act have been satisfied. Therefore, standing in the shoes of the Council and being so satisfied I must make the declaration under s 94(2).[20] That section provides that:

If after complying with subsection (1), the local government is satisfied that the relevant ground under section 89 still exists, it must[21] make the regulated dog declaration for the dog.

  1. [43]
    Having regard to s 24 of the QCAT Act, the correct and preferable decision is that the decision of the Council of 14 February 2019 is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1] Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20 (‘QCAT Act’).

[2]  Mr Millar was referred to Kehl v Board of Engineers on a number of occasions during the course of the hearing as he sought to cross-examine the Council officer about the process of investigation and how they came to their decision.

[3]  [2010] QCATA 58 at [9] (footnotes omitted). Kehl has been followed in numerous decisions in the Tribunal.

[4]  [2012] QCA 284 at [11].

[5]  Mr Miller objected (or seemed to) to me looking at the internet however, s 28(3)(c) of the QCAT Act permits me to inform myself of any relevant information as I see fit.

[6]  Exhibit 13.

[7]  A transcript (‘Transcript’) is exhibit GR-3 to Mr Rashliegh’s affidavit, exhibit 4. A revised version was also provided.

[8]  Transcript page 8 line 16.

[9]  Ibid, page 10 line 10.

[10]  Ibid, page 11 line 1.

[11]  Ibid, page 12 line 31.

[12]  Ibid, page 20 line 46.

[13]  Ibid, page 21 line 17.

[14]  Attachment “Z” to Exhibit 2.

[15]  Also some allowance must be allowed for the passage of time since the incident.

[16]  Mr Millar objected to the admission of the photograph because, rightly, it should have been produced well before the hearing. However, I concluded there was no prejudice and admitted the photograph and gave reasons for overruling his objection.

[17]  Exhibit 4 attachment GR – 2 Transcript at page 7, 8 and 13.

[18]  Attached to Ms McCarthy’s affidavit Ex 12. This evidence was admitted despite Mr Millar’s objection consistent with s 28 of the QCAT Act.

[19] Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147.

[20]  Ibid.

[21]  My emphasis.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Millar v Brisbane City Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Millar v Brisbane City Council

  • MNC:

    [2024] QCAT 93

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Richard Oliver

  • Date:

    28 Feb 2024

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCATA 147
Cite 2 - [2020] QCATA 147
Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2010] QCATA 58
Cite 2 - [2010] QCATA 58
Lee v Brisbane City Council [2012] QCA 284
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2012] QCA 284
Cite 2 - [2012] QCA 284

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.