Oliver Cook appeared for the applicant, instructed by Bespoke Legal Group.
The respondent declared the applicant’s dog to be a dangerous dog and simultaneously ordered its destruction. The applicant sought to set aside the destruction order. The Tribunal ultimately concluded it had no jurisdiction to confirm the destruction order. In any case, the Tribunal also concluded that if it did have jurisdiction, there was no premise for a destruction order to be made and it would not have made such an order.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
