The applicant submitted that his dog did not attack or harass other dogs and is not a nuisance dog. He told the Tribunal about his experience in dog ownership and the training that he provided to his dogs. He provided explanations of the incidents that formed the basis of the order and also submitted evidence from behavioural experts to the Tribunal that supported his arguments. The applicant also raised concerns about the investigation conducted by the respondent, including that he had been denied procedural fairness in the context of the respondent's decision to issue the order.

The respondent submitted that the issue of the order was the correct and preferable decision and should be affirmed. The respondent relied on evidence from witnesses to the two incidents in demonstrating that the criteria for the issue of the order were satisfied.

Held, setting aside and substituting the decision under review:

• The March 2024 incident does not reach the threshold of an attack or harassment and there is not suggestion of any chase;
• The Tribunal does not find that the April 2024 incident amounts to an attack or harass or chase within the meaning of the Act;
• As the Tribunal is not satisfied that B has attacked, harassed or chased a person or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute any offence under the Act or any other Act, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether B is a nuisance dog as the Tribunal cannot make a Nuisance Order;
• Even if the Tribunal found the test in s 51 of the Act met, which the Tribunal has not, the Tribunal would utilise its discretion in the particular circumstances of this case not to make a Nuisance Order because imposing the Nuisance Order may have an impact on the applicant's plans to have B accredited as an assistance dog under the Act;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision is to revoke the Nuisance Order.

Administrative review - Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA) - Review of a decision of a Council or Board to issue a Control (Nuisance Dog) Order - Nuisance

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37

Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 ss 21A, 44, 51, 72

Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13

Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council v Crawford [2005] SADC 135

Hastwell v The City of Holdfast Bay [2014] SADC 132

Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5

Kerr & Parker-Benton v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 10

Joseph Henderson, counsel instructed by Shaw Legal & Advisory, appeared in person for the applicant

Ashlee Provis, counsel instructed by Norman Waterhouse Lawyers; Adarsh Jacob and Paul Kelly, Norman Waterhouse Lawyers, appeared in person for the respondent

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. For the reasons that follow, pursuant to s 37(1)(c)(i) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SACAT Act), I set aside the respondent's decision and substitute my own decision that the Control (Nuisance Dog) Order (Nuisance Order) ought to be revoked.

1. The applicant is an 80-year-old man that owns a 5-year-old desexed and microchipped German Shepherd dog called "B". B was purchased as an eighteen-week-old puppy in around April 2020.[1] B has always been appropriately registered.[2]
2. The applicant has owned dogs for almost his entire life. Throughout his life he has been responsible for at least six dogs that he has owned from puppies until death. All of his dogs have lived long lives and have died of old age.[3] In his approximate 55 years of dog ownership, other than this matter, the applicant has never been the subject of any complaint about the behaviour of his dogs.[4]
3. In November 2023, the applicant was diagnosed with severe osteoarthritis, pancreatitis and vertigo.[5] The illness has resulted in the applicant's inability to lift himself off the ground should he fall. B provides physical assistance to the applicant by helping him lift himself up. B also assists with his balance as he walks. The applicant's goal for B is to gain formal accreditation as an assistance dog pursuant to s 21A(1) of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (the Act)[6] to enable B to legally enter public areas to assist him with his physical needs should assistance be required.[7] Formal assistance training began with Canine Interaction on 30 September 2024. Training was paused in mid-February 2025 pending the outcome of the Tribunal hearing.[8]
4. The Accreditation of Assistance Dogs Policy, Dog and Cat Management Board, dated November 2018, page 4 states:

"An assistance dog can be any breed, colour or size from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane. They must be specifically trained to alleviate a disability, be declared physically fit by a veterinarian and must not have been declared dangerous, menacing or a nuisance."

5. The applicant started to attend the Fremont Dog Park in early 2024. Prior to then, the applicant attended other dog parks with B, including the Andrews Farm Dog Park, Gawler Dog Park and Lewiston Dog Park. The applicant did not have issues at those other dog parks with any person or other dogs.[9]
6. In March 2024, the respondent asserts that B approached "Sophie", a border collie dog, at Fremont Dog Park, and attacked or harassed Sophie by standing over her and barking or snarling or air snapping at her. No injuries were caused to Sophie, however, Sophie's owner fell on the ground while attempting to separate the two dogs and suffered an injury to his knee.[10] (March 2024 incident).
7. On or around 21 March 2024, WXT, Sophie's owner reported the March 2024 incident to the Council. WXT claimed that B "constantly harasses" other dogs and people using the park.[11] He sent an email to the Council on 24 March 2024 setting out various allegations against B and the applicant.[12] WXT describes the March 2024 incident as "out of nowhere" B "came behind the bench and viciously attacked my dog for no reason." Instinctively, WXT jumped up and got in-between B and Sophie and, in doing so, his knee landed on the concrete taking a "chunk" off his knee. He claims he grabbed Sophie with his left hand and B by the collar with his right hand and yelled to the applicant to get his "fucking dog" as the applicant remained seated and did nothing to stop the fight. WXT claimed if he had not stepped in one or both dogs would have been injured as it was a "frenzied attack".[13]
8. On 28 April 2024, the respondent asserts B approached "Phoenix", a different border collie dog, and attacked and harassed Phoenix by standing over Phoenix and biting at Phoenix. Phoenix was checked over by a veterinarian and given pain medication due to soreness in the left hind leg (April 2024 incident).[14]
9. On 28 April 2024, WXT contacted the Council and said that B is "known to be aggressive" and there were multiple witnesses of her "mauling" a dog.[15]
10. The applicant organised a Behaviour Assessment from Canine Connect, dated 7 May 2024.[16] In summary the assessment:

(a) In relation to initial behaviour of B, noted non-threatening, excitable, inviting engagement and jumping and states "Appeared stressed coming out of kennel. Jumping and whining. Pulled heavily";[17]

(b) In relation to obedience, said that B can "sit", can "drop/down" with "hand signal only", does not respond to name, does not come when called and does not walk well on lead "pulled heavily";[18]

(c) In relation to touching and handling, all behaviours were socially tolerant/accepting other than wiggling/squirming in relation to paws;[19]

(d) In relation to sound sensitivity, B had little to no response to immediate sound;[20]

(e) In relation to dog-to-dog exposure/contact, B is interested in dogs but displayed no lunging and minimal pulling to get to dogs;[21]

(f) In relation to profile scoring, B scored mostly 4 which provides that "This dog is advanced and suitable for most Canine Connect training programs."[22]

1. On 22 May 2024, the applicant was interviewed by the Council.[23] I have listened to the recording of the 22 May 2024 interview and also read the transcript.[24] It was useful to listen to the recording because it is clear at times that the applicant is joking, is sarcastic and upset. Of note:

(a) The Council alleged that in relation to the March 2024 incident, B bit Sophie on Sophie's body;[25]

(b) The Council alleged that in relation to the April 2024 incident, B was standing over Phoenix and biting at her;[26]

(c) The applicant at times makes jokes during the interview, for example, using a play on words that Sophie was "lying";

(d) The applicant did get some key information incorrect, for example claiming that his wife was present during the March 2024 incident;[27]

(e) The applicant is at times sarcastic, for example, by saying that B had Phoenix's leg in her mouth;

(f) The applicant appears upset at times, for example stating to his wife, "Don't worry about it, it's all bullshit";

(g) The applicant is at times inconsistent. For example, in his interview with the Council, he initially maintained that Sophie and B were at all times half a metre away[28] and later said that B was standing on top of Sophie[29] and then later said B was to the right of Sophie;

(h) The Council officer asked the applicant approximately four times, in different wording, how Phoenix hurt his leg.[30] The applicant appears frustrated by this repeated questioning;

(i) The applicant and his wife said that they take B to the same park at night with different people and there are no issues;

(j) The applicant offers to show the respondent "recall", or any tricks and the Council officer said she does not need to see any of that.[31]

1. On 6 June 2024, the respondent issued a Notice of Intention to make a Nuisance Order.[32] The Notice only refers to the 28 April 2024 incident and makes no mention of the March 2024 incident.[33] The notice invites submissions within 14 days.[34]
2. The respondent made a Nuisance Order on 18 October 2024. The decision was made by PXS as an Authorised Officer for the respondent in his capacity as Manager Regulatory Services.[35] The respondent states that the Nuisance Order was made based on the March 2024 incident and April 2024 incident and taking into account the need to ensure protection of the general public and other animals.[36]
3. The Nuisance Order has particulars of offence that state as follows "On 28 April 2024 at approx. 10.15am the German Shepherd dog 'B' did attack/ harass a Border Collie in the Fremont Dog Park". The Nuisance Order also requires:

(a) B, whilst at the applicant's place of residence, be kept indoors or for the applicant's residence to be fenced so as to prevent B from escaping;

(b) B, except when confined in the applicant's residence, be under effective control of a person by means of physical restraint; and

(c) The applicant take all reasonable steps to prevent B from repeating the behaviour that gave rise to the Nuisance Order.

1. On 20 October 2024, the applicant filed an application to the Tribunal to review the Nuisance Order.[37] There is no dispute that at the time of the March 2024 incident and April 2024 incident, the applicant was the owner and person responsible for the control of B[38] and that he has standing to make the application to the Tribunal.
2. The Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, provides reasoning for the respondent's decision and set outs:

(a) On 21 March 2024, the respondent received a complaint stating a dog attack had "just occurred" and that B had attacked Sophie. WXT said that B constantly harasses other dogs at the park;[39]

(b) On 28 April 2024, the respondent received a further complaint from WXT alleging that B attacked Phoenix. Later that day, the respondent received correspondence from OZH, Phoenix's owner;[40]

(c) Various witnesses were spoken to, and statements obtained;

(d) On 22 May 2024, the applicant was formally interviewed and there was an audio recording;[41]

(e) Various complaints have been made by the applicant;

(f) On 28 October 2024, the respondent was contacted by DAE who stated that the applicant had offered him money to attend court and declare Sophie had attacked his dog. DAE said he had been offered $500 to do so;[42]

(g) The respondent holds the belief that behaviour displayed by B would likely be repeated if B was unrestrained and interacting with other dogs[43];

(h) The respondent holds concerns regarding the applicant's apparent lack of understanding that repeated behaviours displayed by B whilst off leash are inappropriate, threatening and poses a risk to other dogs that B interacts with;[44]

(i) The respondent does not believe that the applicant had B under effective control while off leash. The respondent holds concerns that the applicant was not able to physically intervene during the attack;[45]

(j) Given B has repeatedly displayed menacing aggression, the respondent believes that the risk to the public is too great to allow B to be unleashed in the community;[46]

(k) The respondent is satisfied that the conditions of the Nuisance Order would reduce the risk B poses.[47]

1. The Statement of Reasons, dated 13 January 2025,[48] refers to the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents and states the respondent is satisfied that B attacked or harassed other animals in circumstances that would constitute an offence.[49] The respondent said the decision was made taking into account the need to protect the general public, other dogs and animals.[50] The respondent said that a Nuisance Order is appropriate because B displays aggressive behaviour when unrestrained and interacting with other dogs, which poses a risk of injury to other dogs or their owners.[51] The respondent said it has regard to the Incident Severity Scale Guidelines and:[52]

(a) The particular breed, size and species of B;

(b) Its living environment;

(c) The Measure that may be made of B's predictability or unpredictability;

(d) The level of aggression displayed by B; and

(e) The nature of harm caused by B.

1. On 6 January 2025, Senior Member Rugless made a confidentiality order under s 60 of the SACAT Act to protect third-party witnesses from any unwanted communication from the applicant. Therefore, any surnames or contact details of the respondent's third-party witnesses are not to be published.
2. The matter proceeded as a contested hearing on 17 and 18 March 2025.

1. In summary, the applicant gave the following evidence:

(a) The applicant has owned approximately five or six dogs previously and owned them from puppies until death;

(b) The applicant trained each of his dogs with basic commands including "stop", "sit", and "drop." For each command, he has a corresponding hand signal;

(c) The applicant estimates he spends four to six hours per week training B;

(d) The applicant said B knows commands for "sit", "shake", "high five", "roll over", turn right", "turn left" and she can "count";

(e) When the applicant walks B, B sticks close to the applicant and leans against his left leg to help with the applicant's health and steadying him on his feet;

(f) The applicant has been attending the Fremont Dog Park since early 2024 and attends approximately two or three times per week and will stay for two to three hours per occasion;

(g) He met a man called WXT at the Fremont Dog Park. WXT informed him that his dog has been in three major fights with a large dog and that he runs the dog park and the Council backs him up. The applicant has personally witnessed three incidents involving WXT's dog, Sophie, and other dogs;

(h) People at the dog park use "bad language" and the applicant would prefer to keep to himself;

(i) At the dog park, B is sometimes on the lead and sometimes off;

(j) B will react and play with other dogs at the dog park and the applicant will supervise her and recall her at times for B's safety;

(k) In relation to the March 2024 incident between B and Sophie, the applicant was on one side of a bench at the park and WXT was at the other end. The applicant and WXT were approximately four metres apart. B moved from in front of the applicant behind the seat and came out the other end. Sophie was growling and B was "chastising" which dog trainers call "air snapping, basically saying don't pick on me." Sophie and B were about two metres apart. WXT then called out "come and get your fucking dog". The applicant got up and walked over. WXT was on his knees holding Sophie;

(l) The applicant explained that by "air snap" he means that B's teeth clench together and B barks at the same time;

(m) In relation to the April 2024 incident, the applicant was seated in his chair near the car park entrance to the dog park. The applicant was reading a book, and B was approximately eight metres in front of him. B was in the large dog park with a sign that says dogs should be over 14 kilograms.[53] Phoenix, a border collie puppy, went straight out to B. Phoenix showed her teeth and made a small growl. B air snapped. When B air snapped, Phoenix flattened on her stomach and "high-pitched screamed". B just stood there, and the applicant acknowledged he did nothing. The applicant then said, "all hell broke loose" and WXT and the pup's owner came over. WXT and a woman said to the applicant "get out the fucking dog park". Phoenix's owner said, "you've got no recall on your dog, it should be out here". The applicant then whistled, and B came over. The applicant said he remained seated because he did not need to intervene and also his physical difficulties;

(n) The applicant claimed that the photo of WXT's injuries in relation to the March 2024 incident he was shown during interview by the Council on 22 May 2024 is different to the photo on page 13 of the Book of Documents. The applicant also said he offered to demonstrate to the Council B's recall, but the Council declined;

(o) In cross-examination, the applicant:

• Admitted that when he was walking to the witness box to give evidence, he said to PXS, the Council's decision-maker "I should whack you in the back of the head". The applicant said this was a "joke";
• Admitted that he does not respect the Council officers very much;
• Was asked about his interview with the Council, in relation to the March 2024 incident, whereby the applicant said that B stood above Sophie and that Sophie and B were half a metre apart not two metres apart. The applicant said B did not stand above Sophie. The applicant clarified, to start off with, B would have been about two metres away from Sophie but then came closer;
• Was asked about his interview with Council, in relation to the April 2024 incident, whereby the applicant said that Phoenix was underneath B and B stepped on Phoenix. The applicant said he was asked the same question about five times in the Council interview and clarified that B did not step on Phoenix;
• Admitted he offered DAE, a person whose dog the applicant claims had issues with WXT's dog, $500 to give evidence. The applicant denied that he offered the money to get DAE to lie. He offered the money to compensate DAEfor him having to take time off work.

1. Mr Bilney is an assistant trainer at Canine Interaction. One of Canine Interaction's services is training and accreditation of assistance dogs.[54] Since October 2024, Mr Bilney has been training the applicant and B for the purpose of B being accredited as an assistance dog.[55] Mr Bilney says B's training has been exceptional and she has been exposed to many dogs in public with no signs of concern.[56] Mr Bilney considers B a strong candidate for assistance dog work and the path of sitting her Public Access Test in the near future.[57]
2. In summary, Mr Bilney gave the following evidence:

(a) He works at Canine Interaction and has done so for approximately five years. He mainly trains dogs, runs behavioural classes and assessments and works towards accrediting assistance animals;

(b) He has completed a Certificate III in Animal Studies and Certificate IV in Companion Animal Services;

(c) B came to Canine Interaction on 21 October 2024 and B had weekly sessions until early January 2025. Mr Bilney has spent approximately eighteen hours with B. Mr Bilney has seen B in the context of Canine Interaction, but he has also seen B at the dog park around other dogs and did not see concerns;

(d) Mr Bilney conducted a preliminary test with B and he "couldn't imagine it going any better". B was fine around people. They even saw a few dogs and B "didn't even bat an eye." B appeared to be trained. B could sit down and lay down. Mr Bilney said B's recall was good, but acknowledged that the test was completed while B was on a leash;

(e) Mr Bilney estimates approximately six more months of training prior to B being able to sit her accreditation test;

(f) In the course of his training, the only behaviour of concern is that B likes to bark. However, Mr Bilney said that "we've covered that, and we've actually managed to stop it." Mr Bilney gave the applicant some homework in this regard and the applicant was receptive to Mr Bilney's feedback;

(g) In cross-examination, Mr Bilney admitted that he was not initially told that there was a Nuisance Order in place and only recently became aware.

1. Ms Eckert is a behavioural dog trainer and has a Certificate IV in Dog Behavioural training.[58] Ms Eckert conducted a behavioural assessment of B on 1 March 2025 and provided a report that sets out her opinion of B's temperament, socialisation and levels of training and obedience.[59]
2. In summary, Ms Eckert gave the following evidence:

(a) She owns her own business called Susanne Eckert and she is a dog behavioural trainer;

(b) She has had 40 years of dog training experience;

(c) She has trained approximately seventy-two dogs subject to orders under the Act;

(d) She conducted an hour and a half assessment of B at the Northfield Dog Park both internally and outside the dog park;

(e) There was a confident puppy in the dog park and Ms Eckert asked its owner for permission for B to come into the dog park and the owner agreed. The pup was licking B around the mouth, jumping on her and there was no reaction from B other than "displacement behaviour" (meaning behaviour that a dog does to give messages to other dogs that it is feeling uncomfortable), an example being B putting her face to the side to try to avoid the interaction. In Ms Eckert's opinion, the way that B behaved in this scenario is an indication of an incredibly well socialised dog and her behaviour was appropriate;

(f) B then went into the small dog park and Ms Eckert observed a couple of small dogs that came up and "yapped" at B. B looked engaged and then just looked away;

(g) B then went into the large dog park and Ms Eckert observed B interact with all the dogs that were in the dog park. B was comfortable with the applicant and also comfortable away from the applicant;

(h) She saw B with approximately forty dogs, and, during that period, there was nothing that gave her cause for concern;

(i) At the end, there was an Alaskan malamute who made a direct beeline for B and "basically shirt-fronted her". B looked at the dog and then just looked away. They sniffed each other and then just walked away. Ms Eckert was concerned about the Alaskan malamute, but B handled it incredibly well;

(j) She described a "displacement snap" as an air snap that might or might not be accompanied by a vocal cue. Ms Eckert said that a dog might air snap to just let the other dog know they have pushed the situation too far. Ms Eckert said it is "distance pleasing. It's like, can you just keep your distance please?";

(k) She denied that air snapping is an alternative to biting. Ms Eckert said that dogs do not miss if they have an intention to bite. Ms Eckert said that the majority of dogs that have got the intention to inflict a bite are incredibly fast and nobody will be fast enough to stop that bite. So, when people say that they were fast enough and that they stopped that dog from biting, those people are fantasising because the speed of a dog's bite is incredibly fast and, if a dog, has got the intention to bite, they will bite;

(l) In response to a scenario put by Mr Henderson, the applicant's representative, that in circumstances whereby a dog air snaps at another dog and it takes five seconds for the owner to come over and separate them and there is no evidence of a bite, Ms Eckert said there is no intention for that dog to bite;

(m) If B's response to a threat is to growl and air snap rather than to bite, that is a well socialised dog with a bite inhibition;

(n) B is very responsive to the applicant and knows some tricks that the applicant has taught her. They did some recalls, but B was on a lead;

(o) She does not encourage dog parks because they are only suitable for a very small minority of dogs. Dog parks are only suitable for dogs that like other dogs. According to Ms Eckert probably "25% of dogs are suitable for dog parks" because it is overstimulation for most dogs;

(p) In cross-examination, Ms Eckert:

• Acknowledged it is common at dog parks to have small dogs in the big dog park and big dogs in the small dog park;
• Acknowledged that throughout her assessment, B was on a lead. However, Ms Eckert said generally dogs that are off lead are more relaxed than dogs that are on lead. Ms Eckert said the fact that B was on lead, and she was relaxed would generally mean that if she was off lead, she would be even more relaxed;
• Said that the rate of aggression towards German shepherds from other dogs is disproportionately high;
• Said that growling is not inappropriate. Ms Eckert said growling is a perfectly normal, natural warning that she encourages owners never to punish;
• Said B is an incredibly well socialised dog.

1. PXS is the Council officer that made the Nuisance Order.
2. In summary, PXS gave the following evidence:

(a) He is employed by the City of Playford Council and has been employed by the Council for approximately ten years. His current role is Manager of Regulatory Services;

(b) His team averages making two to three control orders for dogs per week;

(c) When a complaint is made about a dog, the complaint gets allocated to an officer. The officer begins an investigation and speaks to witnesses. If there is cause to bring it to a "files meeting" that is when PXS becomes aware of the matter. At a "files meeting", the investigating officer will present to the team of approximately six officers and PXS all the information they have been able to gather in a condensed form. As a team, different opinions and viewpoints are discussed, but ultimately it is PXS's decision as to whether or not an order is issued;

(d) In this case, an expiation notice was not issued because the Council was not looking to punish but rather was looking to control the dog and behaviours;

(e) PXS took into account everything in making his decision, including the age, size, breed of the dog, living environment, location of the incidents being in public and the behaviour of the owners. In PXS's opinion, the applicant did not seem to understand the seriousness of what was occurring and largely deflected responsibility and ownership of what was happening.

(f) In cross examination, PXS:

• Said he believes he read and listened to all material in this case but there have been some cases where he has relied on what his investigating officer has said to him, and he cannot say for certain that he read every document in this case prior to making his decision;
• Said he does not remember inconsistencies between the accounts given by the witnesses DIV, OZH and WXT;
• Acknowledged that he has never met DIV, OZH and WXT and his assessment of their reliability was based on their statements, and his officers' information that was discussed during "files meetings";
• Acknowledged that in the notice of intention to make a Nuisance Order and letter to the applicant there was no reference to the March 2024 incident despite the respondent considering that incident relevant to its decision, however, did clarify that the March 2024 incident was put to the applicant in his interview with Council;
• Acknowledged there is inconsistency in the material relating to the date of the March 2024 incident. There is reference to the incident occurring on 14 March 2024,[60] 17 March 2024[61] and 21 March 2024.[62] PXS also acknowledged there is some evidence from WXT that the applicant was not at the dog park on 21 March 2024;[63]
• Said he did consider the incident occurred in a dog park. However, in relation to Phoenix being in a large dog park, he had little regard to that because it is an advisory sign;
• Said that Phoenix has not done anything wrong;
• Said he was not aware of animosity between WXT and the applicant but was aware of "displeasure";
• Said when he listened to the applicant's interview with the Council, he found the applicant's answers inconsistent and sarcastic and did not believe he was taking his obligations as a dog owner seriously;
• Did not consider the applicant's personality when making a decision but did consider his reaction to B or lack thereof as relevant.

1. UCO is an employee of the Council and completed a Dog Attack Investigation on 30 May 2024.[64] This investigation is the summary that UCO presented at the Council "files meeting." In relation to the March 2024 incident, UCO's report states there was no bite, and the incident was not exacerbated by intervention. UCO classifies the incident as a level 1 on the incident severity scale.[65] In relation to the April 2024 incident, UCO's report states that Phoenix's left back leg was injured,[66] there was no bite and UCO classifies the incident as a level 1 on the incident severity scale.[67] UCO states "It is obvious that [the applicant] knows the law but does not think his dog is being a nuisance with what I call bullying behaviour towards other dogs."[68] UCO said he considered "victim statement, witness statement, record of interview and photographs" in coming to his conclusions and said that there was a breach of s 44 of the Act - dogs not to be allowed to attack etc.[69] UCO recommended a Nuisance Order.[70]
2. In summary, UCO gave the following evidence:

(a) He is an employee of the City of Playford and has been so for approximately twenty-three years. His substantive role is Fire Prevention Officer. However, for probably seven months of the year, he does general and community inspector work;

(b) He has a Certificate IV in Regulatory Services (this includes topics relating to investigations) and he receives ongoing training;

(c) When he gets allocated a dog complaint matter, he will usually contact the complainant and ask for a statement, gather photographic or other evidence and speak to the owner of the alleged perpetrator dog. UCO will also try to speak to independent witnesses that are not a relative of the person whose dog has been attacked;

(d) At the "files meetings", he makes a recommendation, and his recommendations are almost always accepted. Out of approximately 40 recommendations he has made, he can recall one that has been overturned;

(e) He got the sense that the initial complainant, WXT, considered himself to be a person of "moral high ground";

(f) He got the sense that OZH, DIV and WXT are acquaintances from a dog park;

(g) He was not concerned by WXT's emails to him appearing personal;

(h) The animosity between WXT and the applicant is obvious;

(i) WXT made other allegations against B and the applicant, but they were "hearsay" and did not have substance to them;

(j) On the day he met the applicant for the first time, he walked into the dog park and there was a scuffle between B and a white dog. UCO said to the owner of the white dog, "do you want to follow up on that at all" and the owner of the white dog said, "my dog was being an idiot."

1. WXT is the owner of Sophie that was involved in the March 2024 incident. WXT was also a witness to the April 2024 incident.
2. In summary, WXT gave the following evidence:

(a) In relation to the March 2024 incident, he was at the Fremont Dog park and the applicant was on one side of the bench and he was on the other side of the bench. Sophie was in front of WXT to the right. B got up and came around the back of the seats and approached Sophie. Next, there was a "huge scuffle." WXT said they were "going for each other" and it looked like "they were trying to kill each other." WXT said that B was trying to bite Sophie's face and Sophie was fighting back. WXT said both dogs were growling. In terms of how it started, WXT said "I'm pretty sure it must have been B because Sophie was actually looking ahead". WXT said the dogs were right in each other's faces within half a metre. WXT said, straight away, he lunged at the dogs. WXT held B back by the collar and grabbed Sophie by the collar and held them apart. WXT fell over during the incident but acknowledged that he has a disability in his legs, so he does fall over. WXT said he felt a "bit of rage" because the owner of B did absolutely nothing. WXT said it was "hard to tell" what the applicant was doing. WXT said he told the applicant "Come and get your fucking dog";

(b) In relation to the April 2024 incident, WXT first heard a noise from Phoenix. WXT was some metres away, approximately thirty metres. The first time he could get close enough to see what was happening, he saw B over the top of Phoenix and B had Phoenix pinned down and was biting her leg. OZH and WXT went running over. DIV also came up and "got B off of Phoenix which ended the incident". During the incident, WXT felt "disgusted" because the applicant was probably eight metres away and did not say anything and did not call B;

(c) In cross-examination, WXT:

• Acknowledged during the March 2024 incident, his attention was not 100% on Sophie because he was talking to friends and looking around the park;
• Acknowledged that the applicant may have grabbed B during the March 2024 incident but not initially;
• Acknowledged that there were no injuries on his dog, no bite wounds, no blood and no hair pulled out;
• Acknowledged that the photos he took of his injuries were taken a week or two after the injuries were sustained;
• Was asked questions about information he supplied to Council about an incident between a dog "Boof" and B. WXT maintained that his good friend AKI told him that her dog "Boof" had a fight with B and his leg was injured and bleeding in several places. When it was put to WXT that AKI has supplied a statement that what WXT said never happened, WXT said she "probably just doesn't want any part of it";
• Acknowledged he did not see the start of the April 2024 incident;
• Acknowledged he is quite good friends with OZH, and he had organised for Phoenix to be OZH's dog;
• When asked about giving evidence of B with Phoenix's leg in her mouth, said "I wasn't close enough, but I saw something like that as I approached";
• Said he saw blood on Phoenix's leg;
• Said he goes to the dog park nearly every day;
• Admitted he does not like the applicant at all, and he would like to see him not come back to the Fremont Dog Park because he considers the applicant anti-social;
• Acknowledged that his dog Sophie has scuffles with a dog called Chloe "every now and then";
• Acknowledged that Sophie is protective of him and scares other dogs by barking and showing her teeth. WXT said that Sophie shows her teeth "every hour".

1. In a question from the Tribunal, WXT admitted that the only difference between his dog's behaviours and B's behaviour during the March 2024 incident is that B came around the bench and approached Sophie. WXT also acknowledged that during the March 2024 incident, he was closer to Sophie and B than the applicant and that he intervened first because he was closer. WXT also said he waited some days before contacting the Council about the March 2024 incident because he was hoping it would be an isolated incident.

1. OZH is the owner of Phoenix and provided a statement to the respondent on 30 April 2024.[71] In relation to the April 2024 incident, OZH admits she was initially looking at her phone. She heard Phoenix screaming and looked up to see B standing over Phoenix and "biting at her." OZH ran towards the dogs yelling. Phoenix came over to her limping and B came over as if she "wanted to have another go."[72]
2. In summary, OZH gave the following evidence:

(a) She owns a one-year-old border collie named Phoenix;

(b) In relation to the April 2024 incident, OZH was looking at her phone and then heard her dog Phoenix "screaming for her life". OZH looked over and saw B jump on top of Phoenix and that is when she ran over. She said she saw B get onto top of Phoenix and was holding her down on the ground and she was running over. Phoenix was underneath B's front legs. B was snapping at Phoenix. When OZH arrived, B was off Phoenix. DIV went to grab B, but B had already got off. OZH was scared and terrified and angry. OZH could see the applicant sitting in a deck chair and said to the applicant "grab your fucking dog or I'm going to kick it". After the incident, Phoenix was shaking, and she would not put her hind left leg on the ground. OZH did not see any blood. OZH picked Phoenix up and went to the veterinarian. The veterinarian was closed but OZH took Phoenix to the veterinarian again the next day when she had a scheduled appointment for another issue. Phoenix was given tablets for her back leg;[73]

(c) In cross-examination, OZH acknowledged that:

• Phoenix was walking on all four legs the day after the incident but had a slight limp;
• Phoenix did not have open wounds, bite marks and was not missing any fur;
• She only had Phoenix for about a month prior to the April 2024 incident and Phoenix had not yet started puppy school. Further, her previous owner did not train her;
• As at the time of the April 2024 incident, Phoenix was playful and energetic;
• There was a large dog park for dogs 14 kilograms and over[74] and as at the time of the April 2024 incident, Phoenix was not 14 kilograms. OZH acknowledged that she was exposing Phoenix to risk by allowing her into the large dog park and she was prepared to accept that risk. In re-examination, OZH clarified that Phoenix was 12.4 kilograms as at the date of the incident;[75]
• At the start of the incident, she was looking at her phone and was not keeping her full attention on Phoenix;
• She does not know how Phoenix and B came to be very near each other;
• She did not touch B;
• She has been influenced in her view as to how serious it was by Phoenix's scream, and she may have overreacted and exaggerated her evidence. In re-examination, OZH clarified that she did not exaggerate key parts of her evidence;
• She is close dog park friends with WXT;
• She is friends with DIV;
• She interacts with WXT and DIV sometimes outside of the dog park;
• She has spoken to WXT and DIV about the incident and the applicant;
• She would be terrified if the applicant came back to the dog park;
• WXT and DIV would not like the applicant to come back to the dog park.

1. DIV is friends with WXT and OZH and witnessed the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents. DIV provided a statement to the respondent on 2 May 2024.[76] In relation to the March 2024 incident, DIV states that Sophie was behind WXT lying down and B went over and stood over Sophie and started "snarling like barking." WXT got up to intervene and fell over while doing so and Sophie did not seem to be injured. DIV says that the applicant never got up from his seat. In relation to the April 2024 incident, DIV heard a scuffle and looked over the see Phoenix on the ground yelping and screaming with B standing over her snapping at her. B did not back off. OZH was running towards the dogs screaming. DIV went to grab B, but the incident stopped and she did not grab B. B then returned to her owner who had not moved or called B back.[77]
2. In summary, DIV gave the following evidence:

(a) She owns two dogs, and she takes those dogs to the Fremont Dog park;

(b) In relation to the March 2024 incident, WXT and the applicant were on a bench and DIV was no more than two metres away. Sophie was laying back at the bench behind WXT. B came from behind and was growling at Sophie. WXT got up to try to grab Sophie but unfortunately WXT fell. DIV could not see or hear anything from the applicant. DIV does not know if someone grabbed Sophie and thinks B could have gone back to her owner;

(c) In relation to the April 2024 incident, DIV said that B seemed to come out of nowhere and pounced on Phoenix. DIV said the yelping of the puppy got her attention straight away. DIV tried to grab B because she was snapping at Phoenix. DIV is not good with measurements so cannot say how far away she was from the incident however; she was within seconds of the incident because she went to grab B to pull her off. However, B backed off. DIV said she doesn't know if B's owner called her and noted that OZH was screaming. The first time she looked over, B was on top of Phoenix. Phoenix was lying on her back and B was standing on top of her. B and Phoenix were close and their faces were within inches. DIV said to the applicant "call your bloody dog off. Don't just sit there and do nothing."

(d) B is a beautiful dog and gets along with her dogs, but she feels the lack of responsibility for the situation is concerning;

(e) DIV goes to the Fremont Dog Park nearly every day;

(f) WXT and OZH are her dog park friends;

(g) In cross-examination, DIV acknowledged:

• In relation to the March 2024 incident, she was not really watching everyone's dog as she tends to keep an eye on her own dogs however, she was certain it was B that growled but it could have been a "warning growl". The incident involved a growl from B, a grab of Sophie and then the incident stopped. The incident was not a frenzied attack and there was no biting in each other's faces. Sophie was behind WXT and DIV had people on the bench in front of her so she could not see the whole body of Sophie or the whole body of B. The incident was over quickly. The applicant may have come over and grabbed B;
• In relation to the April 2024 incident, DIV did not see how Phoenix came to be under B or so close to B. Phoenix is energetic and playful and loves running after the ball in the park. DIV did not have to pull B off. DIV said she is certain B was on top of Phoenix. DIV said B was trying to bite Phoenix and was snapping at Phoenix. DIV did not observe any blood on Phoenix. DIV acknowledges that emotions were heightened;
• If the applicant had controlled B or at least come over, grabbed B and apologised, DIV does not think "any of us would be here today."

(a) In this case, the appropriate course of action is to set aside the decision and make no order in its place;

(b) The applicant was denied procedural fairness because the Notice of Intention to make a Nuisance Order referred to the 28 April 2024 incident but not the March 2024 incident. Mr Henderson said to invite submissions on one incident and then make a decision based on two incidents is a clear breach of procedural fairness;

(c) Having heard from both UCO and PXS, the way in which the decision was made is entirely inappropriate because it is not clear all of the source documents were read, and the material was summarised to the decision-maker. It is also of concern, that out of forty recommendations made by UCO, only one of those recommendations has been rejected. Mr Henderson submitted this is "extraordinary" and "smacks of a rubber stamp approach to decisions being made";

(d) There was a one-sided approach to the investigation. The Council was critical of inconsistencies from the applicant but uninterested in inconsistencies between WXT, OZH and DIV. Mr Henderson said the difference in evidence from DIV and WXT relating to the March 2024 incident is like "describing two separate incidents";

(e) Although the date of the March 2024 incident is unclear, the date is immaterial. There is no dispute that an incident occurred in March 2024, but the Tribunal has heard different versions of events. The accounts from DIV and the applicant are broadly consistent however WXT's account of a vicious attack is different. The March 2024 incident does not amount to an attack or harassment particularly in the context of the incident having occurred in a dog park;

(f) In relation to the April 2024 incident, none of the Council witnesses saw how the incident first occurred. In that context, it is reasonably open to find that a young, energetic puppy has approached an older dog and in response the older dog has chastised the young dog. It was a minor incident in a dog park where emotions were heightened. The April 2024 incident does not amount to an attack or harassment particularly in the context of the incident having occurred in a dog park;

(g) In relation to whether B is a nuisance dog, the evidence of Ms Eckert and Mr Bilney suggests that she is not;

(h) In relation to the Tribunal's discretion, B being a big and athletic dog is relevant as is the evidence that the applicant is trying to obtain an accreditation for her as an assistance dog;

(i) When questioned as to what weight the Tribunal should put on the applicant's evidence, Mr Henderson submitted that the applicant's presentation should be seen in light of this being an emotional incident. He is feeling affronted and accused of things that are not true, so he is upset about that and that has come out in his evidence. However, Mr Henderson submitted that the applicant has tried to give honest and accurate evidence.

(a) The Council did provide procedural fairness to the applicant because he was asked about the March 2024 incident in his interview with Council;

(b) The Tribunal need only be satisfied that one incident amounts to an attack or harassment to make a Nuisance Order;

(c) In relation to the $500 payment offer the applicant made to DAE, $500 a day for reimbursement is "very very high" and it would not be reasonable costs suffered for missing a day's work particularly noting that the applicant gave DAE a copy of his letter. However, Ms Provis did acknowledge this was not put to the applicant when he gave evidence;

(d) It is not in dispute that the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents occurred, and they are the only incidents that the Council took into account in making the Nuisance Order. The Council views other allegations as "unsubstantiated". The date of the March 2024 incident is not clear but 14 March 2024 is probably correct;

(e) In relation to the April 2024 incident, there is no evidence that Phoenix provoked B. In relation to the leg of Phoenix, the highest the Council can say is it is likely B stepped on her. Ms Provis accepted that no one saw Phoenix's leg in B's mouth;

(f) In relation to whether B is a nuisance, Judge Millsteed considered the definition in Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council v Crawford [2005] SADC 135 and said at [51], "it embraces dogs that are disposed to unreasonably interfere with property or the comfort or convenience of people or animals."

(g) In relation to whether B attacked or harassed or is likely to do so again, the relevant offence provision is found in s 44(2) of the Act. The terms attacked, harassed or chased were considered the Tribunal in Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13. The Tribunal at [92] found the word "attack" does not require actual contact and the word "harass" is apt to describe threatening, menacing, intimidating or aggressive behaviour such as to reasonably cause fear to a person.

(h) It is relevant that B was a short distance from the face of each of the dogs, that she air snapped in their faces, that the incidents were loud and unusual and drew the attention of other people at the dog park and others expected the applicant to intervene but he did not do so;

(i) In relation to the Tribunal's discretion:

• The issue of whether B is a well-trained dog is relevant but not determinative. In the case of Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5, the Tribunal found in relation to a dog named Roko that Roko was generally an obedient and well-trained dog. Roko had a friendly disposition and a good relationship with its owner. Notwithstanding the Tribunal found it appropriate to affirm a menacing dog order. Ms Provis submitted that dogs can be well trained, and a control order can still be appropriate and that the real question is the applicant's ability to recall B. The applicant's behavioural assessment states that B does not have the ability to come when called;
• The issue of accreditation is not a determinative factor, and it is relevant that B did not start the training until October 2024. Further, the fact that B has not had accreditation has not caused issues for the applicant taking B where he would like to do so. Further, there is no statutory impediment to B being accredited and even though it is in the policy, there is no evidence the policy is applied strictly. Ms Provis submitted that I should place limited weight on the accreditation training given it occurred after the order was imposed and that the accreditation training was commenced for the purposes of strengthening the review application. Having said that, Ms Provis acknowledged this was not put to the applicant during his evidence;
• As to the submission regarding the impact of the Nuisance Order on the quality of B's life, there is no evidence to support this submission, and no weight should be placed on this submission. For example, there has been no evidence as to the size of the applicant's yard and whether exercise off leash in a dog park is the only appropriate exercise for B;
• The key factor for the Tribunal to consider is the objects of the Act. The Tribunal said in Kerr & Parker-Benton v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 10 at [63] that past behaviour is a reliable indicator of future behaviour;
• The evidence from Ms Eckert is growling is not inappropriate. Therefore, B is likely to be faced with growling in the future and the Tribunal should be satisfied similar future incidents will occur;
• The applicant has downplayed the seriousness of the incidents and should similar incidents occur, he will not intervene. Further, the applicant cannot physically intervene in any event.

(j) Ms Eckert's evidence is limited to her observations of B on a lead and Mr Bilney's evidence is limited to a specific purpose of assistance training;

(k) In a dog park, there is an element of some level of accepted risk;

(l) Once all the evidence and the object of the Act is considered, the correct and preferrable decision is to affirm the Nuisance Order;

(m) When asked what I should make of WXT's evidence given he saw blood on Phoenix's leg (when no other witness did), he said a serious dog incident occurred when the owner denied that occurred, DIV's evidence that Sophie was behind him (contrasted to his evidence of where Sophie was in the March 2024 incident) and WXT's communication about the applicant, Ms Provis said that the Tribunal has other witnesses to rely on, not just WXT and WXT was emotional after these incidents and scared and angry the applicant had not intervened.

1. In reply to Ms Provis' closing submissions, Mr Henderson said that the applicant had taken steps to commence accreditation training in December 2023. Further, the behavioural assessment that says that B cannot be recalled is trumped by Mr Bilney's evidence and Ms Eckert's report because Mr Bilney's evidence and Ms Eckert's report is more recent. Further, the applicant offered to recall B during the Council interview, and the Council declined.

1. Under s 72 of the Act the applicant may seek a review of a Nuisance Order before the Tribunal.
2. This proceeding is in the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. The Tribunal's task is to examine the decision of the original decision-maker, give appropriate weight to the original decision and to consider material before the original decision-maker and any new material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's role is to reach the correct and preferrable decision. The Tribunal's powers include to affirm, vary, or set aside the decision under review and either substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration.
3. I am therefore required to conduct a review on the merits and reach the correct or preferable decision. I also need to be satisfied that the facts have been proved on the balance of probabilities.
4. The stated objects of the Act are to encourage responsible dog ownership, to reduce public nuisance caused by dogs and to promote effective management of dogs.[78] In my view, decisions under the Act need to be carefully considered and give appropriate weight to those objects.
5. I cannot make a Nuisance Order unless I am satisfied that:[79]

(a) B is a nuisance;

(b) B has attacked, harassed or chased a person or an animal or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act.

1. Section 44(2) of the Act provides that it is an offence for a person who owns or is responsible for the control of a dog if the dog attacks, harasses or chases or otherwise endangers the health of a person or an animal or bird (whether or not actual injury is caused). It is a defence to the charge if it is proved that the dog was at the time of the offence being genuinely used in the reasonable defence of a person or property, or for droving or removing an animal found trespassing (s 44(4) of the Act).

1. I have considered all the material filed in this matter, including:

(a) The application to the Tribunal;

(b) The Nuisance Order;

(c) The s 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents;

(d) Council interview of the applicant (voice recording and transcript);

(e) Bundle of documents provided by the applicant, filed 7 November 2024;

(f) Statement of Reasons, dated 13 November 2024;

(g) Applicant's affidavit, dated 28 February 2025,

(h) Report of Susanne Eckert, dated 1 March 2025,

(i) Letter from James Bilney, dated 4 March 2025;

(j) Outline of argument by the applicant, dated 7 March 2025;

(k) The respondent's written submissions, dated 14 March 2025;

(l) Statement of AKI, undated.

1. I have also had regard to the evidence at the contested hearing and submissions made by Counsel.
2. I have also considered the respondent's original decision in this matter and have given some limited weight to it. I have given limited weight to the decision and not full weight for the following reasons:

(a) In my view, the applicant was denied procedural fairness by the respondent not including the March 2024 incident in the Notice of Intention to make a Nuisance Order. It is true that the respondent did put the March 2024 incident to him during interview with the Council in May 2024 but the Notice of Intention to make an order is a formal document calling for submissions. It is clear the applicant was disadvantaged by this because the letter from his lawyer, dated 19 September 2024, only refers to the April 2024 incident;[80]

(b) The decision-making process was flawed because an investigating officer summarised the materials to the decision-maker and the decision-maker cannot say with certainty that he personally read all of the relevant material. Further, the decision-maker appears to have put no weight on the clear animosity between WXT and the applicant and the fact that the respondent witnesses to the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents are all friends and have discussed the incidents amongst themselves. There is also little analysis as to inconsistencies in the evidence and what weight to put on the evidence of the various witnesses. Having said that, I do not believe there was any malice in the Council's decision-making process. The applicant suggested some inappropriate relationship between WXT and UCO as WXT had UCO's personal number and referred to "our case."[81] I reject this submission based on UCO's evidence that WXT's call went to his personal number because it was a public holiday and WXT's call was automatically transferred to his personal number from his work number. I also reject the submission that the Council's decision-making process "smacks of a rubber stamp approach." The Council officers that appeared before me seemed to take their roles seriously and I do not believe they approached their role with any unprofessionalism;

(c) I have had significant more material available to me than the original-decision maker. Unlike the original decision-maker, I have heard oral evidence from many witnesses that was tested by way of cross-examination. Further, I have a letter from Mr Bilney and report of Ms Eckert that were not before the original decision-maker.

Has B attacked, harassed or chased a person or animal or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act?

1. The only incidents relied upon by the respondent to suggest that B has attacked, harassed or chased a person or animal or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act are the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents.
2. There are many other allegations made by WXT against the applicant and B but the respondent, for good reason in my view, says these allegations are "unsubstantiated."
3. I have real concerns with WXT's evidence, and I would place very little weight on his evidence. I say this based on the following:

(a) WXT's evidence is inconsistent with other witnesses. For example, WXT claimed in evidence before the Tribunal that he saw blood on Phoenix which no other witness saw, including Phoenix's owner and the veterinarian that examined Phoenix the next day. I find it highly improbable that WXT saw blood on Phoenix's leg and, yet despite this, he gave evidence to the Tribunal that he did see blood on Phoenix's leg;

(b) WXT's evidence is internally inconsistent. For example, WXT said to the Council in relation to the March 2024 incident that B "viciously attacked" his dog for no reason and there was a "frenzied attack". In evidence before the Tribunal, WXT seemed to back track on his evidence and admitted that B's conduct in March 2024 was essentially the same as his dog's conduct. WXT offered no explanation as to why he would complain to the Council about a frenzied attack from B when his dog was acting in the same way;

(c) WXT's evidence is an exaggeration of events. For example, WXT suggested that, in relation to April 2024 incidents, there were multiple witnesses of B "mauling" Phoenix.[82] Other than WXT's account, no other witness suggests there was a mauling;

(d) WXT has clear animosity towards the applicant. In communication to the Council, WXT calls the applicant a "fuckin idiot",[83] "HEARTLESS PRICK"[84] and "antisocial man".[85] WXT has also claimed in his opinion B is not "suited for Fremont"[86] and that the applicant comes to the park to "antagonise everyone"[87] and is "taking the piss out of the council, yourself and me".[88] WXT admits "I'm so pissed off with" the applicant;[89]

(e) WXT has made certain allegations against the applicant which have been refuted and the Council classify as "unsubstantiated". For example, WXT said that B was in a fight with a 4-year-old bull Arab called 'Boof' whose owner noticed his leg has been slightly injured, bleeding in several places but not serious.[90] Boof's owner has refuted this and said it was untrue;

(f) WXT's version of events has changed over time. For example, when WXT first complained to Council about the April 2024 incident, there was no mention of blood on Phoenix's leg. However, in evidence before the Tribunal, WXT said that there was blood on Phoenix's leg;

(g) WXT has spoken about the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents with other witnesses, including OZH and DIV.

1. I also have concerns about the applicant's evidence. The applicant tends to make jokes, be sarcastic and appeared, at times, emotional and angry in his evidence. I do not believe the applicant was deliberately trying to mislead the Tribunal and, for this reason, I do place some weight on the applicant's evidence, but reduced weight for the following reasons:

(a) On 28 October 2024, the respondent was contacted by DAE who stated that the applicant had offered him money to attend court and declare Sophie had attacked his dog. DAE said he had been offered $500 to do so.[91] The applicant claimed in evidence he just wanted DAE to tell the truth, and the payment was for compensation for loss of work. I do note that that DAE's email to the Council does refer to a "minor scuffle" between Chloe and Sophie.[92] DAE also implies that WXT is a "mate".[93] The respondent submitted that $500 is not reasonable cost for missing a day's work particularly in light of the applicant providing DAE a copy of his letter to the Council. However, I accept the applicant's explanation that he wanted DAE to give evidence about an incident between Chole and Sophie. This position is supported by DAE's email whereby DAE admits that there was a "minor scuffle." I do not accept that the applicant asked DAE to lie. Indeed, DAE does not assert in his correspondence to the Council that the applicant asked him to lie. The offer of payment was inappropriate, but I accept that the applicant offered this payment to compensate DAE for lost work opportunity and to provide evidence to the Tribunal about the "scuffle". Providing the applicant's letter to the Council to DAE was also inappropriate but I do not find malice in this or an attempt to deceive the Tribunal;

(b) Whilst walking to the witness box to give evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant, said to PXS, the Council's decision-maker "I should whack you in the back of the head". The applicant said he said this as a "joke". Even if this is a joke, it is an unacceptable joke and shows no regard for Council workers;

(c) The applicant at times is argumentative and inconsistent. For example, in his interview with the Council, he initially maintained that Sophie and B were at all times half a metre away.[94] In that same interview, he later said that B was standing on top of Sophie.[95] Later again, in the interview, he said that B was to the right. The applicant also appears sarcastic at times. For example, in a sarcastic manner, he said that B was chewing on Phoenix's leg. The applicant also got some key information incorrect, for example claiming that his wife was present during the March 2024 incident.[96] Further, during the Council interview, in relation to the March 2024 incident, he said he did not see WXT fall but during evidence with the Tribunal, he said that WXT was on his knees.

1. In my view, whilst not explaining the totality of the applicant's conduct particularly in relation to PXS, there is some context to the applicant's anger and evidence. The respondent has put allegations of B biting other dogs to the applicant and, in my view, this did not occur. In my view, UCO was correct to find there was no biting during either the March 2024 or April 2024 incident. The respondent also asked the applicant the same question approximately four times during interview which clearly frustrated the applicant. In my view, repeated similar questions is not the best approach to elicit accurate evidence as it is likely to frustrate and annoy the witness. I also agree with the submission of Mr Henderson that the respondent did not consider in detail the inconsistencies and relationships of the respondent witnesses prior to deciding this case. In other words, the applicant was affronted and upset about untrue allegations being put to him. Nevertheless, I repeat that the applicant's threat to PXS, the Council's decision-maker "I should whack you in the back of the head" is totally inappropriate and unacceptable and I can have no confidence that the applicant will cooperatively work with Council in the future.
2. In relation to OZH's evidence, I note that OZH is the owner of Phoenix and was highly distressed about the April 2024 incident and admitted she may have overreacted and exaggerated her evidence. I also note that she is friends with DIV and WXT and has spoken to them about the April 2024 incident. Therefore, while I do place some weight on her evidence, I place less weight.
3. In relation to DIV's evidence, the Council seems to have adopted a view that she is an independent witness. It is true that DIV is not the owner of any dog that B is alleged to have attacked or harassed, but she is friends with OZH and WXT, and she has spoken to WXT and OZH about the incidents, so in this sense she is not independent. Again, I do place weight on her evidence but, less weight.
4. In relation to the March 2024 incident, I find on the balance of probabilities:

(a) The incident occurred in a dog park where dog owners take their dogs knowing that there will be heightened interactions with other dogs;

(b) The applicant and B were sitting on one side of a bench and WXT and Sophie were at the other side of the bench;

(c) I note that WXT says that Sophie was in front of him to the right, but I prefer the evidence of DIV that Sophie was behind WXT lying down. This means that WXT did not have a good view of Sophie;

(d) B came around the back of the bench and walked towards Sophie;

(e) There was growling or barking from both Sophie and B. I note that the applicant says that Sophie was growling first, and B was chastising her with an "air snap" (which he gave evidence about meaning teeth clenched together and barks at the same time). When asked how the incident first started, WXT stated that he was "pretty sure" it was B suggesting doubt on his part. WXT also acknowledged that Sophie is protective of him and scares other dogs by barking and showing her teeth. WXT said that Sophie shows her teeth "every hour". DIV acknowledged that she was not really watching everyone's dogs however, she was certain it was B that growled but it could have been a "warning growl". WXT acknowledged that she did not have her full attention on the incident and could not see the whole body of Sophie or the whole body of B. I consider it is likely that Sophie showed her teeth (given WXT's evidence of how frequently Sophie does this) and growled first (which DIV did not see or hear), and then B barked or growled and snapped her teeth. I am satisfied that at some stage both Sophie and B were growling or barking and showing their teeth;

(f) B and Sophie were acting in a similar manner of growling or barking towards each other and showing their teeth;

(g) B and Sophie were close to each other but did not touch or bite each other. I reject WXT's evidence that B was trying to bite Sophie noting Ms Eckert's evidence that if a dog wishes to bite and has opportunity, it will likely do so and there is no evidence that B bit Sophie;

(h) WXT grabbed Sophie by the collar;

(i) WXT was closer to B and Sophie than the applicant, so it was reasonable that WXT intervened first;

(j) WXT told the applicant to come and get his "fucking dog" and the applicant did so. Indeed, WXT acknowledged in evidence that the applicant may have grabbed B during the March 2024 incident but not initially. DIV also acknowledged this in evidence;

(k) No injuries were caused to Sophie however, WXT fell on the ground during the incident and suffered an injury to his knee. The applicant suggests that WXT's knees may have been hurt in another incident.[97] I reject this. I acknowledge that the injuries in the Book of Documents appear to be old and a scab but multiple witnesses, the applicant, WXT, DIV and ORF said that WXT was on his knees during the incident and I accept on the balance of probabilities that he fell during the incident and suffered a minor injury;

(l) The incident was over quickly, and it was a minor incident in the context of a dog park. According to DIV, the incident involved a growl from B, a grab of Sophie and then the incident stopped.

1. There is some uncertainty about the date of the incident. In some documents, it is described as having occurred on 21 March 2024. In other documents, it is described as having occurred on 14 March 2024 and, yet in other documents, it is described as having occurred on 17 March 2024. In any event, both Counsel accepted, and I accept that the date is not material given there is no dispute that some type of incident in Mid-March 2024 occurred.
2. I reject WXT's evidence that "out of nowhere" B "came behind the bench and viciously attacked my dog for no reason." As I have already found, I consider it likely Sophie showed her teeth and was barking and/or growling during the incident. I also reject WXT's evidence that B was trying to bite Sophie noting Ms Eckert's evidence that if a dog wants to bite, it will likely do so. The incident was a minor incident, and WXT has admitted that both dogs acted in a similar way. I also reject WXT's evidence that he grabbed B by the collar. The applicant denies this, and DIV did not see this. I also reject WXT's opinion that if he had not stepped in one or both dogs would have been injured as it was a "frenzied attack".[98] It is pure speculation on WXT's part to say there would have been injuries to the dogs had he not intervened. According to DIV, the incident involved a growl from B, a grab of Sophie and then the incident stopped. The incident was not a frenzied attack and there was no biting in each other's faces.
3. I note that, another witness that was not called to give evidence, ORF said that "B approached then lunged at Sophie and an aggressive fight broke out and Sophie's owner had to dive onto and hold B off. B's owner is an older man and did not approach."[99] However, ORF's evidence is not in statement format and nor was she called to give evidence, so her evidence has not been tested. Further, ORF's claims were made some time after the event, and it appears that she has a friendship with WXT. I prefer the evidence of DIV's tested evidence in relation to this incident to any other witness. I acknowledge DIV's evidence that the incident was unusual in the context of a dog park, but I note that DIV did not complain about this matter until the April 2024 incident.
4. I reject the suggestion throughout the materials that because the applicant did nothing relating to the March 2024 incident this is a concern in terms of him being a responsible dog owner. The reality is that this was a quick and minor incident that occurred very near WXT. WXT intervened because he was the closet person to the incident and the incident was over. WXT then called the applicant to get his dog, and he did so. WXT admitted in evidence that it was "hard to tell" what the applicant was doing.
5. In Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13, the Tribunal said at [91] and [92] that the words attack, harass or chase are intentionally broad. The attack, harass or chase criterion will be satisfied where:

(a) A dog chases a person or animal;

(b) A dog harasses a person or animal through threatening, menacing, intimidating or aggressive behaviour, such as to reasonably cause fear; or

(c) A dog attacks a person or animal even where the dog has not made physical contact with the victim (for example, where the dog runs at a person in an aggressive manner, such as to reasonably cause fear).

1. The March 2024 incident does not reach the threshold of an attack or harassment and there is no suggestion of any chase. I accept that there does not need to be a bite to reach the level of attack or harassment and that the dogs were close and that the incident drew the attention of people at the dog park. However, this was a very minor incident in a dog park whereby two dogs acted in a similar way, and, on the balance of probabilities, Sophie showed her teeth to B and B responded with a "warning growl" or bark and snapping of her teeth. The incident was very quick. I consider it relevant that no complaint was made by any witness on the day of the incident. WXT explained this in evidence as him hoping it was an isolated event. I reject WXT's explanation for not complaining about the incident earlier. According to WXT's email to the Council he claims he was aware of an earlier "serious fight" so his explanation that he did not complain about the March 2024 incident earlier because he was hoping it was an isolated incident is not credible.[100] I find that no witness thought to complain about the March 2024 incident on the day of the incident because they did not consider it sufficiently serious. I have considered that by B growling, barking and air snapping, this might be perceived as threatening, intimidating or aggressive behaviour. However, it needs to be seen in context whereby Sophie likely showed her teeth first and the incident occurred in a dog park where heightened interactions are to be expected. I do not believe this conduct reaches the level of harass or attack.
2. In relation to the April 2024 incident, I find on the balance of probabilities:

(a) The incident occurred in a dog park where dog owners take their dogs knowing that there will be heightened interactions with other dogs. The incident occurred in a large dog park whereby there is a sign that dogs should be 14kg or over. Notwithstanding Phoenix was below 14kg. OZH acknowledged that she was exposing Phoenix to risk by allowing her into the large dog park and she was prepared to accept that risk. Having said that, Phoenix was fairly close to the appropriate weight range, being 12.4 kilograms;

(b) The applicant was seated in his chair near the car park entrance to the dog park. The applicant was reading a book, and B was approximately eight metres in front of him;

(c) Phoenix, a border collie puppy, went to B. Phoenix showed her teeth and had a small growl. B "air snapped" (meaning she clenched her teeth together and barked). When B "air snapped", Phoenix flattened on her stomach and "high-pitched screamed". No other witness other than the applicant saw this but I accept his evidence in this regard. All other witnesses admitted that they did not see the start of the incident and only had their attention drawn to the incident by Phoenix's high-pitch scream. I reject the respondent's submission that there was no evidence of provocation from Phoenix given the applicant's evidence;

(d) B stood over Phoenix. The applicant claims that B did not stand over Phoenix, but I reject this evidence given the evidence of DIV and OZH and their confidence that this occurred;

(e) It is unclear how but, during the incident, Phoenix injured her leg. I cannot make a finding as to how this occurred on the balance of probabilities. It may have occurred because B stepped on Phoenix. It may also have occurred because Phoenix was frightened and twisted her leg. Either way, it did not occur due to B biting Phoenix but I am satisfied that Phoenix injured her leg during the incident;

(f) OZH was scared, terrified and angry during the incident;

(g) OZH rushed over screaming and covered Phoenix;

(h) DIV also rushed over and went to grab B but did not do so as B had already stopped. No person touched B during the incident;

(i) The applicant sat on his chair and did not move. He did not move due to his physical difficulties but also because he did not feel it was necessary as other adults were nearby and he did not feel that B did anything wrong;

(j) Without intervention, B stopped and returned to the applicant;

(k) The applicant says that he called B over and I accept this on the balance of probabilities. I acknowledge that neither DIV, WXT nor OZH heard the applicant call his dog over, but emotions were high, OZH was screaming and B returned to the applicant, so it is possible they did not hear the applicant call B over. DIV concedes that she does not know if B's owner called her over;

(l) The next day Phoenix was checked over by a veterinarian and given pain medication due to soreness in the left hind leg.

1. I reject the evidence of OZH given to the Tribunal that B jumped on top of Phoenix. There was no mention of this in OZH's first statement to the Council, dated 30 April 2024. I also reject DIV's evidence given to the Tribunal that B pounced on Phoenix. There was no mention of this in DIV's first statement to the Council, dated 2 May 2024. During cross-examination, both OZH and DIV admitted that they did not see the start of the incident and how Phoenix came to be under B so it is unclear how they can say they saw B jumping or pouncing on Phoenix. I prefer their initial statements to the Council as closer to the timing of the actual events and less likely to be impacted by discussions with other witnesses, including WXT.
2. I also reject OZH's and DIV's account that B was biting or trying to bite at Phoenix particularly given Ms Eckert's evidence that if a dog wants to bite and has opportunity, it will do so. I find it more probable that B was "air snapping" (meaning clenching her teeth together and barking).
3. I reject WXT's evidence that there were multiple witnesses of B "mauling" a dog.[101] I also reject WXT's evidence that B was biting Phoenix. In cross-examination in relation to this issue, WXT admitted "I wasn't close enough, but I saw something like that as I approached". I also reject WXT's evidence that there was blood on Phoenix. No other witness saw blood. I also reject WXT's account that DIV "got B off of Phoenix which ended the incident". DIV gave evidence that she did not touch B and I prefer her evidence to WXT's.
4. I do not find that the April 2024 incident amounts to an attack or harass or chase within the meaning of the Act. I accept that B's behaviour of standing over Phoenix and air snapping caused fear to OZH and other adults and it could be perceived as threatening and intimidating. I also accept that B was very close to Phoenix, Phoenix was scared and injured during the incident and B was aggressive. However, this incident involved a young puppy that was too small for the large dog park going up to a larger dog and growling and showing her teeth. B reacted by air snapping and standing over Phoenix which was disproportionate to any threat that B was facing, however, in my view it was not an attack or harassment. Ms Eckert said, and I accept her evidence, that the majority of adult dogs are intolerant of puppies' lack of social skills and will aggress, to move them away. If puppies do not read those subtle signs the majority of adult dogs would escalate to a growl and snap.[102]
5. The incident was over very quickly and there was no bite and no sustained injury. Even though Phoenix was injured, it was a mild injury. Further, it is unclear if the injury occurred by B stepping on Phoenix or Phoenix twisting her leg. I am satisfied that B's behaviour was a warning to Phoenix for Phoenix's earlier behaviour of growling and showing her teeth. It was Phoenix's high-pitched scream that drew the attention of nearby persons, none of whom (other than the applicant) saw the initial part of the incident. OZH appropriately acknowledged that she was influenced in her evidence by her fear for Phoenix.
6. The applicant submits, and I accept, "persons who decide to use public dog parks must do so knowing, understanding and appreciating that there will from time-to-time be incidents or confrontations between dogs. There must, in those circumstances, be recognition by the respondent that the context of an incident in a dog park is markedly different to an incident that occurs otherwise in general public ... that of course is not to say that an incident in a dog park can never justify the imposition of a Control Order; however, the applicant submits that the two incidents relied upon by the respondent, which were brief, caused nil injury, and are consistent with normal canine behaviour, are insufficient."[103] Indeed, the respondent concedes that in the context of a public dog park, heightened interactions between dogs are expected. I have also put some weight on the fact that the incident occurred in a large dog park and Phoenix was too small for that park, however, I also acknowledge the sign is only advisory, Ms Eckert's evidence that it is common for large dogs to be in small dog parks and vice versa and that Phoenix was close to the appropriate weight range. Further, the objects of the Act, in my view, dictate that even in large dog parks there does need to be responsible ownership and management of dogs.
7. The respondent appears to be critical that the applicant did not intervene in the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents. The respondent submits that there is an expectation that owners will intervene when their dogs unreasonably interfere with the comfort or convenience of other people or animals[104] and the respondent expresses concern that the applicant cannot intervene. In my view, there should be no criticism towards the applicant for not intervening in the March 2024 incident because there were other closer adults. In relation to the April 2024 incident, the applicant gave evidence he did not intervene because he did not feel the need to and also because of his physical disability. I note that Phoenix initially showed her teeth and growled at B and the applicant said he knew that B was simply chastising Phoenix and would not bite her. I accept that other adults were frightened and upset but they did not see the initial part of the incident. Further, if B wanted to bite Phoenix, I consider that she had opportunity to do so and did not so it appears the applicant was correct in believing that B would not bite Phoenix. I also consider it relevant that I have found during both incidents that no one touched B. In other words, B did not require physical intervention in relation to both incidents. Further, although the applicant cannot physically intervene, he says he can recall B will his voice. I acknowledge the Canine Connect Behaviour Assessment states B does not come when called. However, the evidence of Mr Bilney and Ms Eckert suggests that B can be recalled (although I do acknowledge those observations were made by Mr Bilney and Ms Eckert whilst B was on a lead). I prefer Mr Bilney and Ms Eckert's observations as being more recent in time.
8. I have also considered the Incident Severity Scale Guidelines that was produced in the s 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents.[105] In the circumstances of this case, the most relevant level appears to be level 1 that applies to "Dog that exhibits unacceptable aggression - examples Dogs rushes at person/s in public; Dog snarls."[106] I do not believe that B's conduct in the March 2024 and April 2024 incident reaches level 1. There was aggression from B but it was not unacceptable in the context of the incidents.
9. In relation to the phrase "in circumstances that would constitute an offence" in s 51 of the Act, in Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13 at [101], the Tribunal said that attention is drawn to the circumstances of the event, not the broader circumstances of the person responsible for the dog. Again, in my view, it is relevant that the incidents occurred in a dog park where heightened interactions with other dogs is expected.
10. The applicant considered it relevant in relation to whether there has been an attack or harassment that no expiation notices have been issued.[107] I reject that submission. In my view, a dog can attack or harass or chase without there needing to be expiation notices issued. I accept the Council's explanation that it did not issue expiation notices in this case as it did not consider there was a need to punish in this case.
11. I have considered whether B is likely to attack, harass or chase a person or animal in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act. I have considered Ms Eckert's evidence that the rate of aggression towards German shepherds from other dogs is disproportionately high and, in a dog park, it is likely that B will be subject to growls or barks and teeth snapping. However, I do not consider B's response of "air snapping" in response overly problematic particularly given Ms Eckert's evidence that air snapping is not an alternative to biting and, if B's response to a threat is to growl and air snap rather than to bite, that is a well socialised dog with a bite inhibition. Further, I am comforted by Mr Bilney's evidence that B's barking has reduced. Due to clear animosity between WXT and the applicant and other attendees at the dog park, it may be possible that further complaints are received but there would need to be detailed analysis of any such complaint to determine its veracity.

1. As I am not satisfied that B has attacked, harassed or chased a person or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act, it is not necessary for me to consider whether B is a nuisance dog as I cannot make a Nuisance Order.
2. However, if I am wrong and B has attacked, harassed or chased a person or a bird, or is likely to do so, in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act or any other Act, I have considered whether B is a nuisance dog for the purposes of the Act.
3. In Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5 at [25], the Tribunal observed that a Nuisance Order is more suited to a dog that poses a risk of causing annoyance, inconvenience or trouble rather than harm. I do not believe that B poses a real risk of causing annoyance, inconvenience, trouble or harm. B is a five-year-old dog. Other than two fairly minor incidents in a dog park, there are no allegations of concern in relation to B. The March 2024 incident was a very minor incident. I acknowledge that B stood over Phoenix in the April 2024 incident and caused fear to her owner, other adults and Phoenix, but the reality is that the incident was initiated by Phoenix showing her teeth and making a small growl and B was issuing a warning air snap to Phoenix which Ms Eckert has said most adult dogs may do.
4. There are positive references about her character and socialisation. For example, there is a reference from Coffee with Canines, dated 7 June 2024.[108] Coffee with Canines state that B regularly frequents their busy coffee shop in Gawler. They state that "We have known this particular dog for a considerable amount of time, and on every occasion have never seen her be reactive or aggressive to any person or dog whilst within our store, she basically minds her own business and is extremely switched on to both of her owners."[109] There is also a reference from Deputy Mayor, Clint Marsh that states that he has often observed B and he lives in the same street. Mr Marsh has seen B's owners training her, walking around the block and taking her to large public car shows with crowds and large dogs. B has never caused any problems even when other dogs have barked aggressively at her. B is gentle with Mr Marsh's children, aged 15 months, 4 years and 6 years.[110]
5. Ms Provis submitted that if a dog is generally obedient and well-trained, this is relevant but is not the single determinative factor as to whether a dog is a nuisance. I agree with her submission.
6. In Clare & Gilbert Valley Council v Crawford [2005] SADC 135 at [51], Judge Millsteed considered the meaning of nuisance dog and stated the term nuisance dog is not capable of exhaustive definition, but it embraces dogs that are disposed to unreasonably interfere with property or the comfort or convenience of people or animals.[111] I do not believe that B has or will unreasonably interfere with property, comfort or convenience of people or animals. There is no evidence of B interfering with property or people (other than indirect distress caused to WXT and OZH and indirect minor physical injury caused to WXT). In relation to Sophie and Phoenix, overall, these incidents were brief, minor and in the context of a dog park whereby, heightened interactions between dogs are expected. Further, in my view, both Sophie and Phoenix were first aggressive to B and then B responded.
7. Whether B is to be characterised as a nuisance dog is a question of fact to be objectively assessed in the whole of the background and the circumstances of the case: Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5 at [25]. Relevant considerations may include the dog's breed and species, predictability and unpredictability, antecedent history, level of aggression, sociability, lability of mood, the health of the dog and its environment, the dog's response to subsequent interventions, expert evidence, the nature of the harm caused, and any hardship likely to be suffered by the dog following the implementation of the order: Hastwell v The City of Holdfast Bay [2014] SADC 132 at [73].
8. I acknowledge that the respondent says that during the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents, B interfered with the comfort and convenience of Sophie, Phoenix and their owners and it is relevant that B was close to the other dogs and aggressive, but I would find that B is not a nuisance dog for the following reasons:

(a) Both the March 2024 and April 2024 incidents were minor incidents in the context of a dog park causing no significant or ongoing injuries;

(b) The April 2024 incident was initiated by a smaller dog in a large dog park;

(c) Mr Bilney's evidence that B's training has been exceptional, and she has been exposed to many dogs in public with no signs of concern.[112] Mr Bilney considers B a strong candidate for assistance dog work and the path of sitting her Public Access Test in the near future.[113] Further, I consider it relevant that in the course of his training, the only behaviour of concern is that B likes to bark. However, Mr Bilney said that "we've covered that, and we've actually managed to stop it." Mr Bilney gave the applicant some homework in this regard and the applicant was receptive to Mr Bilney's feedback;

(d) Ms Eckert's report outlines that B is very responsive to basic cues and has a large resume of tricks that the applicant has taught her;[114] B's response to recalls is immediate (although Ms Eckert did appropriately acknowledge the assessment occurred while B was on a leash),[115] during a 1.5 hour assessment at LJ Lewis Dog Park where B was exposed to over 40 unfamiliar dogs of various sizes and types, B remained relaxed for the entire time with no sign of aggression or significant displacement behaviours.[116] During her assessment outside the dog park, B observed dogs and comfortably disengaged, showing signs of a well socialised dog.[117] At no time during Ms Eckert's assessment of B did B display any behaviours that would lead Ms Eckert to believe she was in anyway aggressive.[118] Ms Eckert said that B has effective voice control and comes back to the applicant when called.[119] Ms Eckert said B appears to be an incredibly well socialised dog that is relaxed, calm, engaging and has not displayed any aggression towards unfamiliar dogs or people;[120]

(e) Positive references from Coffee with Canines, dated 7 June 2024[121] and Deputy Mayor, Clint Marsh.[122]

1. I do not believe a Nuisance Order is required to meet the objects of the Act. The purpose of imposing an order under the Act is not to impose a penalty or punishment. Rather, it is to achieve the objects of the Act, including the promotion of a responsible dog ownership and ensuring the safety of persons and other animals: Kerr v Parker-Benton v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 10 at [11]. I do not believe a Nuisance Order is required to protect people or other dogs from B. Further, the imposition of the order is not required to promote effective management of B as B is already a well-trained and socialised dog.
2. There has been a large focus in this case on the applicant. The applicant clearly has the tendency to upset people. I accept there are factors in this case that suggests that the applicant is not a responsible dog owner, namely, his tendency to upset other dog park users, his threat towards PXS and his lack of respect towards Council. In my view, a responsible dog owner does understand that the Council has a job to do and would respond appropriately to a Council investigation even if feeling affronted and even if untrue allegations are put to them. Further, a responsible dog owner should be able to have civil relationships with other dog park users and respond appropriately when questioned about their dog's behaviour. Having said that, overall, in this case, there are other factors to suggest that the applicant is a responsible dog owner, including:

(a) He has owned many dogs without incident;

(b) He has trained his dogs;

(c) B is a well socialised dog;

(d) The applicant clearly loves B and takes her to regular veterinary appointments and cares for her appropriately;

(e) Although the applicant does not have respect for Council workers, he did engage in the investigation process and provide his version of events to the Council;

(f) After the incidents, he took B to Canine Connect for an assessment to determine if there were issues with B's behaviours;

(g) The applicant was receptive to Mr Bilney's feedback to take steps to reduce B's barking;

(h) There is some evidence that the applicant has been attending the Fremont Dog Park at times when he knows that other users that he does not get along with are not present.

1. Overall, I do not believe that B is a nuisance and nor do I find that the objects of the Act would be met by imposing a Nuisance Order.

1. Even if I found the test in s 51 of the Act met, which I have not, I would utilise my discretion in the particular circumstances of this case not to make a Nuisance Order because imposing the Nuisance Order may have an impact on the applicant's plans to have B accredited as an assistance dog under the Act. I accept that the Act does not mandate that there be no Nuisance Order prior to accreditation but the relevant policy, if strictly applied, could cause impediment to B being accredited as an assistance dog.

1. I have considered whether other orders may be appropriate under the Act. I do not believe a more severe order is appropriate given I am satisfied that a Nuisance Order is not appropriate. A Control (Barking Dog) Order is also inappropriate as B is not a nuisance and the evidence from Mr Bilney is that barking has reduced.

1. I am satisfied that the correct and preferrable decision is to revoke the Nuisance Order.
2. The decision subject to review is set aside and, in its place, the Tribunal makes the orders set out below:

[1] Report of Susanne Eckert, dated March 2025; Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 11.

[2] Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 11.

[3] Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 6.

[4] Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 10.

[5] Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 14.

[6] Applicant's Outline of Argument, dated 7 March 2025, paragraph 3.

[7] Report of Susanne Eckert, dated March 2025.

[8] Report of Susanne Eckert, dated March 2025.

[9] Affidavit of Applicant, dated 28 February 2025, paragraph 17.

[10] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 5; Book of Documents, pages 7 and 13.

[14] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 6; Book of Documents, pages 7, 100-103.

[24] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre.

[25] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 1.

[26] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 2.

[27] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 14.

[28] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 8.

[29] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 11.

[30] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 23.

[31] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 32.

[32] Book of Documents, pages 50-51; 54.

[35] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 3.

[36] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 12.

[38] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 11.

[39] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 4.

[40] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 8.

[41] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 13.

[42] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 28; Book of Documents, page 95.

[43] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 38.

[44] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 39.

[45] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 46.

[46] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 51.

[47] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 52.

[54] Letter from Mr Bilney, dated 4 March 2025.

[55] Applicant's Outline of Argument, dated 7 March 2025, paragraph 15.

[56] Letter from Mr Bilney, dated 4 March 2025.

[57] Letter from Mr Bilney, dated 4 March 2025.

[58] Report of Susanne Eckert, dated March 2025.

[59] Applicant's Outline of Argument, dated 7 March 2025, paragraph 16; Report of Susanne Eckert, dated March 2025.

[66] Book of Documents, pages 44, 100-103.

[78] Valente & Anor v City of West Torrens [2024] SACAT 29, para [42].

[82] Applicant's bundle of materials, filed 7 November 2024, document 6, City of Playford, 28 April 2024 at 10.37.04am.

[91] Statement of Reasons from the respondent, dated 13 November 2024, paragraph 28. Book of Documents, page 95.

[94] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 8.

[95] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 11.

[96] Record of Interview taken on 22 May 2024 at 11.55am at Playford Civic Centre, page 14.

[97] Applicant's bundle of materials, filed 7 November 2024.

[102] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.4.

[103] Applicant's Outline of Argument, dated 7 March 2025, paragraph 52.

[104] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 29.

[107] Applicant's Outline of Argument, dated 7 March 2025, paragraph 21.

[111] Respondent's Written Submissions, dated 14 March 2025, paragraph 26.

[112] Letter from Mr Bilney, dated 4 March 2025.

[113] Letter from Mr Bilney, dated 4 March 2025.

[114] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.1.

[115] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.1.

[116] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.2.

[117] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.2.

[118] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.2.

[119] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.3.

[120] Report of Ms Eckert, dated March 2025, paragraph 6.4.