Dodd v Gladstone Regional Council [2025] QCAT 566

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Dodd v Gladstone Regional Council [2025] QCAT 566 PARTIES: TANYA DODD (applicant) v GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR214-25 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2025 HEARING DATE: 31 October 2025 HEARD AT: Rockhampton DECISION OF: Member Willey ORDERS: The decision of the Gladstone Regional Council to make a destruction order in respect of the dog Lillian made on 24 February 2025 (and confirmed on internal review on 18 March 2025) is set aside. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where dog declared a dangerous dog – where dog seized – whether grounds for destruction order in respect of the dog should be exercised Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 3, s 89, s 127, s 127AA APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Mr Peter Krebs, General Counsel for Gladstone Regional Council REASONS FOR DECISION [1] In these proceedings the applicant Tanya Dodd seeks a review of the decision of the Gladstone Regional Council made on 24 February 2025 and confirmed on internal review on 18 March 2025 to issue a Destruction Order in respect of her dog. [2] Ms Dodd is the registered owner of a tan and white female Beagle cross known as “Lillian”. -- 1 of 6 -- 2 [3] On 24 April 2022, Lillian is said to have attacked a person in Rockhampton and caused injuries by biting. The victim sustained injuries in the form of puncture wounds and bite marks to both legs in the calf region. [4] At the time of the attack, Ms Dodd was residing in Rockhampton. She subsequently moved to Gladstone taking Lillian with her. [5] The Rockhampton Regional Council investigated. Lillian was declared a regulated dangerous dog by Declaration made on 15 September 2022. Ms Dodd was issued a Dangerous Dog Regulation and Information Notice. That notice advised that Lillian and a second dog owned by Ms Dodd had been declared as dangerous dogs. The notice also provided the reasons for the declaration and alerted Ms Dodd to the necessity of registering Lillian and to the steps she would have to take to meet the requirements for keeping a declared dangerous dog in accordance with the Animal Management (Cats and dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (“the Act”). [6] The notice provided information to Ms Dodd of her right to review the decision declaring Lillian a dangerous dog. Ms Dodd did not seek an internal review of the notice provided on 15 September 2022. [7] On 6 October 2022, the Gladstone Regional Council (“the Council”) issued a compliance notice to Ms Dodd outlining her noncompliance with the requirements of keeping a declared dangerous dog. Subsequently, the Council executed a search warrant at Ms Dodd’s residence. The intention was to seize Lillian, however Lillian was not present at the time, and Ms Dodd advised the Council officers she was unaware of where her dog was. [8] From that time until February 2025, the whereabouts of Ms Dodd was unknown to the Council. On 14 February 2025, the Council received an anonymous report that Lillian was housed at a unit complex in Gladstone and that Lillian had bitten residents within that complex. According to the anonymous reporter, Ms Dodd had requested her dog’s whereabouts not be disclosed to the Council. [9] On 14 February 2025, the Council, in company with two police officers, attended Ms Dodd’s unit and effected a warrant to seize Lillian. On 24 February 2025, the Council issued a receipt for the seizure of Lillian and a Destruction Order notice under s 127 of the Act. Contained in that notice was information of Ms Dodd’s right to seek an internal review of the decision. [10] On 5 March 2025, Ms Dodd sought an internal review. That review was conducted and on 18 March 2025, the decision of the Council to issue a Destruction Notice for Lillian was confirmed. [11] Ms Dodd filed an application to review the decision of the Council with the Tribunal on 22 April 2025. Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review the decision [12] The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made.1 A person who is given a review notice for a decision may apply to the Tribunal for an external review of the decision.2 1 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 17. 2 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) s 188. -- 2 of 6 -- 3 [13] In this review the Tribunal has power to confirm or amend the 24 February 2025 decision, set aside the decision and substitute its own or set aside the decision and return it to the Council for reconsideration.3 The Tribunal’s function is to reach the correct and preferable decision after a fresh hearing on the merits. The Tribunal must act fairly and according to the substantial merits of the case.4 [14] The Act regulates the management of dogs by their owners. The purposes of the Act include promoting the responsible ownership of dogs and providing for the effective management of regulated dogs.5 These purposes are primarily achieved by imposing obligations on owners to exercise effective control of dogs in particular circumstances and ensure dogs do not attack or cause fear.6 [15] The purpose of declaring a dog to be a regulated dangerous dog is twofold: (a) to protect the community from damage or injury, or risk of damage or injury, from regulated dogs; and (b) to ensure that regulated dogs are: (i) not a risk to community health or safety; and (ii) controlled and kept in a way consistent with community expectations and the rights of individuals.7 [16] The protection of the community is to be given a higher priority than the individual rights of dog owners.8 Legal framework and findings [17] Section 89(2) of the Act provides a dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog: (a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or (b) may, in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal. [18] Whilst the Destruction Order issued by the Council on 24 February 2025 was issued pursuant to s 127 of the Act, at hearing the Council sought to rely on s127AA(3) of the Act. That section provides that if the regulated dog has not seriously attacked a person or animal the authorised person may make a destruction order in relation to the dog. [19] In Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management9 (‘Nguyen’), the Tribunal said: 3 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 24. 4 Ibid ss 20, 28(2). 5 Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) s 3. 6 Ibid s 4(m). 7 Ibid s 59. 8 Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97, [20]. 9 [2017] QCATA 121, [31], [32]. -- 3 of 6 -- 4 … the essential question is whether the dog can be controlled taking into consideration the threat, or likely threat, to the safety of other animals or to people by attacking them or causing fear, posed by the dog. Determining whether a dog can be controlled will require a consideration by a decision-maker of a range of matters which might include: (a) the relevant history of the behaviour of the dog giving rise to the consideration of the making of a destruction order; (b) any other relevant history of the behaviour of the dog, including the circumstances giving rise to the declaration that the dog was a regulated dog; (c) the current behaviour of the dog including whether the behaviour of the dog has been, and/or could be, modified through appropriate training; (d) the arrangements for the dog at its place of residence including the security of any enclosure and whether any interaction by the dog with persons, including household members and other persons entering upon the property, pose a threat of harm to such persons; (e) the risk the dog poses to community health or safety including the risk of harm to people and other animals outside the place of residence of the dog; (f) compliance by the owner of the dog with any permit conditions imposed as a result of the dog being declared a regulated dog; (g) whether the owner of the dog demonstrates insight into and understanding of the dog’s behaviour and has acted appropriately to mitigate any risk posed by the dog to people or animals; (h) the rights of individuals including the owner of the dog. [20] In Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No 2)10 the Appeal Tribunal considered it was appropriate for the above matters in the Nguyen case to be taken into account as well as the likelihood of the dog’s owner complying with a dangerous dog declaration. Evidence [21] The Council relied on the attack on 24 April 2022 and the anonymous report of Lillian biting residents which was made on 14 February 2025 in support of its decision to confirm the destruction order. There was no evidence placed before the Tribunal regarding the initial investigation by the Rockhampton Regional Council that gave rise to the dangerous dog declaration. That is, there was no investigation notes from the Rockhampton Regional Council tendered and no witnesses called from that Council. There was no evidence from the victim of the alleged attack nor medical evidence of the injuries said to have been sustained. Ms Dodd stated that the Rockhampton Regional Council had initially incorrectly identified Lillian. Mr Tumbers, who was called as a witness for the Council, gave evidence that he was not aware of any misidentification of Lillian, presumably because he was not involved in the initial investigation. 10 [2019] QCATA 167. -- 4 of 6 -- 5 [22] In the circumstances, there was no evidence from the anonymous informant other than what was related in the Council’s investigation notes which were tendered at hearing. [23] Further, the Council relied upon Ms Dodd’s failure to seek an internal review of the original decision declaring Lillian to be a dangerous dog and failing to comply with the requirements of keeping a declared dangerous dog. The Council further alleged that Ms Dodd hid Lillian from them between October 2022 and February 2025. [24] The Council relied upon body worn camera footage and the evidence of Local Laws Officer Mr Tumbers surrounding what it says was the unsatisfactory arrangements in place for Lillian at Ms Dodd’s residence. Mr Tumbers’ evidence accorded with the footage tendered during the hearing. That being, that upon attending Ms Dodd’s unit to seize Lillian on 14 February 2025, none of the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog had been met. [25] Ms Dodd gave evidence that she was unaware that Lillian had been declared dangerous and for that reason she did not seek an internal review of the initial decision. She informed the Tribunal she was homeless between March 2022 and March 2023 and did not receive the notices sent to her by either the Rockhampton or Gladstone Regional Councils. [26] Whilst Ms Dodd maintained that she was unaware the declaration had been made, it is noted that upon the Council officers advising they were present to seize Lillian, Ms Dodd could be heard to say, “yeah, take Lilly…Lilly, you’re being put down today…see you later, you’re dying today.” The inference to be drawn is that Ms Dodd had knowledge of the dangerous dog declaration and was aware she had not complied with any of the requirements. Further, Ms Dodd had another dog, “Costa Zu”. That dog was declared dangerous on the same day that Lillian was, being 15 September 2022, and was later destroyed. Ms Dodd was aware of that declaration and of course the destruction of Costa Zu. [27] In terms of the relevant history of the behaviour of Lillian, the body worn camera footage showed Lillian to exit the unit wagging her tail. She was placed on a lead without issue and was walked to the Council’s vehicle. There was no sign of aggression exhibited by Lillian at that time. At the time of the hearing, Lillian had been impounded for approximately eight months. The Council, despite being offered an opportunity to do so, placed no evidence before the Tribunal of Lillian’s behaviour whilst housed in the Council pound. [28] During the hearing, Ms Dodd gave evidence that she had recently purchased an enclosure for Lillian from Kmart. The enclosure, she said, measured 106cm by 76cm by 70cm, had latches on it and was made from metal. The Council had not viewed that enclosure prior to the hearing. She otherwise gave evidence that her back fence was between 5 to 6 feet high, however there was a pathway leading from her back patio to the unit complex. Should Lillian be returned to her, she intended to utilise a child safety gate across that path so that Lillian could not escape the back patio. No other requirements had been met. Ms Dodd gave evidence that she had not sought to comply with any other requirements because she was advised by staff at the Council not to do so before the matter had been determined by the Tribunal. [29] It is difficult to accurately assess the risk Lillian may pose to community health or safety in circumstances where the only evidence of Lillian’s behaviour comes from the fact that the Rockhampton Regional Council determined Lillian to be a dangerous dog and an anonymous person made certain allegations about Lillian’s behaviour to -- 5 of 6 -- 6 the Council. Given no witnesses were called by the Council at hearing from the Rockhampton Regional Council, their conclusions were unable to be tested. In my view, limited weight attaches to the information provided by the anonymous informant, where again, that person’s information was unable to be tested at hearing. [30] Ms Dodd does not consider Lillian to be a vicious or dangerous dog. She says that others in the unit complex know her to be a kind and loving dog that wouldn’t hurt anyone. Regardless of when precisely she became aware that Lillian had been declared dangerous, she had taken no steps to comply with the requirements of keeping a dangerous dog other than the purchase of what would appear, on the face of it, to be a noncompliant cage or enclosure. From the evidence of Mr Tumbers, it would appear that Council have not inspected the unit in which Ms Dodd lives other than the front fence and courtyard area. Ms Dodd was able to explain during the hearing what the requirements of keeping a dangerous dog were and she expressed her willingness to comply with those requirements. [31] The destruction of a dog is a last resort where the mechanisms in the Act for management fail or are ineffective. As stated in Thomas v Ipswich City Council: The essential question is whether the dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of other animals or to people, by attacking them or causing fear, to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog.11 [32] Whilst there remains a concern as to Ms Dodd’s ability to adhere to the requirements of keeping a dangerous dog and her insight into any such need to do so, equally there is no evidence of how the Rockhampton Regional Council identified Lillian as the dog that attacked a person on 24 April 2022. There is limited evidence of the risk that Lillian poses to people or other animals. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the destruction order should be set aside. [33] This means that Ms Dodd is obliged to ensure that she complies with the legal requirements for keeping a declared dangerous dog. 11 [2015] QCATA 97, [18]. -- 6 of 6 --