Administrative Review - Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 - Review a decision of a council or Board to make a prohibition order against a person

Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 ss 44, 55, 59A, 72

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37

Valente & Anor v City of West Torrens [2024] SACAT 29

Wilson v City of Onkaparinga [2024] SASC 139

Mr Aitken, instructed by S O'Toole, appeared for the applicant

Mr Napier, Norman Waterhouse, appeared 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.

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. The applicant seeks review of the respondent's decision to make a prohibition order. The decision to issue a prohibition order in this case has the effect that the applicant is prohibited from acquiring or becoming responsible for the control of any dog for a period of five years. The decision also requires that each dog owned by the applicant or under her control be surrendered and destroyed.[1]
2. For the reasons that follow, I affirm the decision of the respondent to make a prohibition order.

1. This is an application for review of a decision by the respondent made on 12 February 2025 to issue the applicant with a prohibition order pursuant to s 59A of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (the Act).[2]
2. The applicant looks after two dogs, Siza and Biggles.[3] Siza is an auburn coloured desexed, blind female German Shepherd X American Staffordshire Terrier with a date of birth of 3 November 2014.[4] Biggles is a white male (with brown markings) desexed American Staffordshire Terrier X with a date of birth of 2 October 2018.[5] Siza belongs to the applicant's son however she lives with the applicant. Biggles is owned by the applicant.
3. The applicant is wheelchair bound with one leg amputated above her knee following a 12-hour operation in 2017 through which she developed a severe infection. The applicant also suffers severe carpal-tunnel syndrome in both of her hands. She cannot feel her fingers; she cannot write and experiences constant pain in her hands. The applicant also has type 2 diabetes. The applicant has filed a Functional Capacity Assessment, dated 24 May 2024, that states her left above knee amputation is a lifelong condition that will affect her ability to engage in daily living tasks. The applicant also experiences additional struggles with daily living tasks due to other medical conditions including carpal tunnel and bursitis in the hip. The likelihood of change in function or support needs is minimal and it is expected she will require ongoing support for the rest of her life.[6]
4. The applicant lives with her husband to whom she has been married for forty years. The applicant's husband was involved in a workplace truck rollover in 2024 which occurred as he was suffering a heart attack. The applicant's husband suffered a serious injury to his lower back and because of the injury and ongoing pain, he spends large periods of time in bed.[7] The applicant's husband suffers from severe anxiety and depression and has experienced suicidal ideation. He is medicated in respect of his mental health; however, the prospect of his dogs being destroyed has exacerbated his mental health concerns considerably.[8]
5. IXD lives in a caravan on the same property as the applicant and her husband towards the front of the property near the fence line and RUR previously lived in the house but no longer does so.[9]
6. The property where the applicant lives is surrounded by a tall (approximately six feet and five inches) metal fence.[10] There are two gates. As of 2 February 2025, there was a yellow sign displayed on the fence next to the main gate which said, "Beware of the dog".[11]
7. The respondent's decision to issue the applicant with a prohibition order arises from an incident which occurred on 2 February 2025.[12]
8. On 2 February 2025, VKI attended the applicant's property to serve a licence disqualification on RUR. VKI attended the property through a gate. VKI approached the front door and banged on it. After the applicant opened the door, Biggles and Siza (the dogs) bit VKI on the arm and on the groin region, respectively (2 February 2025 incident).[13]
9. As a result of the 2 February 2025 incident, Biggles has been seized by the respondent, however Siza has not been seized and is currently in the applicant's care. I understand the reason that Siza was not seized is because Siza is diabetic and requires two insulin injections per day.[14]
10. Prior to the 2 February 2025 incident, there have been several alleged incidents involving one or more of the dogs.

First Alleged Incident, 1 May 2018[15]

1. The first incident concerns a dog (inferred to be Siza as dog is described as "brown")[16] allegedly escaping the applicant's premises. The dog escaped and attacked a postman by biting him on the trousers.[17] The postman said this had happened to him in the past when the dog was out again, but he did not report it on that occasion.[18]
2. No formal action was taken by the respondent because of this incident.[19]

Second Alleged Incident, 14 May 2019[20]

1. On 14 May 2019, Siza allegedly escaped the premises. Siza was wandering at large for the purposes of the Act, and attacked a postman by charging at the postman, baring her teeth and biting the postman on the leg and boot, causing ripped pants and a small mark (bruising) on the postman's leg.[21]
2. The postman provided a statement to the Council relating to this incident and described the main gates at the end of the driveway being opened when he saw the 'large brown dog [charge] down the driveway and immediately went to bite his leg.' No serious injury was suffered by the postman.[22]
3. As a result of this incident, Council issued a Control (Nuisance Dog) Order for Siza.
4. An expiation notice totalling $525 was also issued alleging an offence against s 44(2) of the Act.[23]

Third Alleged Incident, 15 May 2019[24]

1. The same postman involved in the incident on 14 May 2019 was allegedly charged and barked at by Siza.[25] At [3] of his statement, the postman stated he was on the opposite side of the road to Siza before he saw the dog run at him. He describes his experience as feeling threatened by the dog because it was 'acting very aggressively'.[26] On this occasion, the gate had been left open.[27]

Fourth Alleged Incident, 17 May 2019[28]

1. A further incident involving the same postman in the second and third incidents allegedly occurred. The postman observed the gates to be open at the premises, and Siza was allegedly 'sitting on the public footpath'. When the postman tried to take a different route to avoid Siza, Siza charged at him and was barking and snarling.[29]
2. The incident with the postman was the second alleged incident on the day. A Pastor says that he was walking along the street when he sighted a dog outside of the premises. The dog was advancing towards him, and he tried to make the dog back off, but it returned snarling, baring its teeth again and acting aggressively. The Pastor observed that the driveway into the house was open, and no one came out from the property during or after the incident.[30]

Fifth Alleged Incident, 19 May 2019[31]

1. On this occasion, the gates to the premises were left open a further time. VZT was walking her dog, and she observed Siza leave the gates of the premises. Siza allegedly ran at her and her dog, growled at them from about a metre away and returned home when yelled at. VZT felt threatened and harassed. Upon returning to the premises, the gates were not closed. VZT was nearly confronted by the dog again as it came out to the road before it was called back.[32] The applicant admits that her husband was opening the gates and unfortunately Siza ran out of the gates and chased a woman who had a small dog.[33]

Sixth Alleged Incident, 4 February 2022[34]

1. On 4 February 2022, Biggles and Siza escaped the premises. At the time, SON was walking his dog, Arlo. Biggles and Siza ran up to them and Biggles or Siza (not known which dog)[35] allegedly tried to attack by nipping at Arlo's legs.[36] It is not entirely clear whether it was Biggles or Siza that nipped at Arlo but there is some evidence it was Biggles as Biggles is referred to in the attack/harassment investigation[37] and the respondent issued a Control (Menacing Dog) Order in respect of Biggles as a result. The applicant explained the gates were opened because her son was fixing them.[38]
2. Following this incident, on 6 June 2022, Council issued a Control (Menacing Dog) Order in respect of Biggles.[39] As part of that order, Biggles was required to be registered by 7 October 2022. On 13 August 2022 and 15 September 2022, prior to his registration, Biggles was reported to Council for wandering at large.[40] These incidents were expiated.[41]

Seventh Alleged Incident, 26 June 2023[42]

1. On this day, YZC was walking his dog, Sally. Two dogs came around the corner. Those dogs rushed towards YZC and Sally and the white dog (inferred to be Biggles because of the white colour)[43] was seen to grab Sally on the back right hind quarter with its teeth and throw her about two meters away.[44] The dogs returned to the premises where a male was waiting, the male's response to what happened was allegedly that he could not help it, the back gate was damaged, so the dogs were out and the two colorbond gates were also open. Sally was injured in the attack, taken to the vet, and received treatment by way of a staple for the wound, pain relief and antibiotics.[45]
2. As a result of this incident, the respondent determined to make a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order with respect to Biggles and a Control (Menacing Dog) Order with respect to Siza.[46]
3. The Control (Dangerous Dog) Order with respect to Biggles required, amongst other things, that Biggles wear a collar that complies with the requirements of the Board, that there be warning signs (complying with the requirements of the Board) that Biggles be enrolled in training within one month of the date of the order and training be completed within 12 months and all reasonable steps are taken to prevent Biggles repeating the behaviour that gave rise to the order.[47]
4. The Control (Menacing Dog) Order with respect to Siza required, amongst other things, that Siza wear a collar that complies with the requirements of the Board, that Siza be enrolled in training within one month of the date of the order and training be completed within 12 months and all reasonable steps are taken to prevent Siza repeating the behaviour that gave rise to the order.[48]

Eighth Alleged Incident, 12 December 2023[49]

1. A council officer, SVL, was driving down the street and noticed that two dogs were leaving the premises and going across the road and then returning in and out of the property. SVL approached the premises with caution after finding out two dogs at the premises had control orders associated with them. SVL called another Council officer for assistance to detain the dogs. Another Council officer attended shortly after that call to help SVL shut the gate.[50]

1. Under s 72 of the Act the applicant may seek a review of a prohibition 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.
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.[51] In my view, decisions under the Act need to be carefully considered and appropriate weight given to those objects.

1. Section 59A of the Act refers to the power to make a prohibition order and states as follows:

(1) A council or the Board may, in accordance with this Division, make a Prohibition Order against a person.

(2) A Prohibition Order -

(a) prohibits the person from acquiring or becoming responsible for the control of any dog for the period specified in the order; and

(b) requires each dog owned by the person, or for the control of which the person is responsible, at the time the order takes effect:

(i) to be destroyed or, if the order so allows, disposed of in a specified manner, within a specified period (but not less than one month after the order takes effect); and

(ii) until destroyed or disposed of, to be kept or detained at a place specified in the order (or at some other place subsequently approved by the council or the Board (as the case requires)).

(3) A council or the Board may, on its own initiative or on application, make a Prohibition Order against a person if satisfied that -

(a) while the person owned or was responsible for the control of a dog, the dog attacked, harassed or chased a person or an animal or bird owned by or in the charge of a person in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this Act; and

(b) -

(i) the dog was already subject to a Destruction Order or a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order; or

(ii) during the 5 years preceding the event referred to in paragraph (a), a Destruction Order or a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order was made in relation to some other dog on grounds that arose while the person owned or was responsible for the control of that other dog.

(3a) ...

(4) However, a council or the Board may not make a Prohibition Order if the person satisfies the council or the Board that -

(a) the person did not intend the event referred to in subsection (3)(a) to occur and the event did not result from any failure on the part of the person to take all reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event; or

(b) the event referred to in subsection (3)(a) occurred while the dog was, without the person's consent, in the possession or control of another person. ...

1. A prohibition order cannot be made unless the criteria in s 59A of the Act is met. In summary, those criteria are that:

(a) while the person owned or was responsible for the control of a dog, the dog attacked, harassed or chased a person or an animal or bird owned by or in the charge of a person in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act (offence); and

(b) the dog was already subject to a Destruction Order or a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order (previous order).

1. I have considered all the material before me, including all the material filed, exhibits, submissions, the applicant's list of authorities, and the Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents (other than pages not relied upon, namely, pages 21-24).
2. I have also considered the evidence and submissions at the hearing and the respondent's original decision in this matter[52] and have given weight to it. I acknowledge that the respondent has expertise in this area and its decision ought to be given weight. The respondent's decision maker states that the applicant failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of an attack. Further, Biggles and Siza are aggressive and unpredictable in their behaviour and the respondent has little confidence that further incidents will not occur given the applicant has failed in her duties under the Act over a substantial period of time.[53]
3. I have also had regard to the particular breed, size and species of the dogs. Biggles and Siza are both medium sized dogs.[54] Siza is a German Shepherd X American Staffordshire Terrier and Biggles is an American Staffordshire Terrier X. I have had regard to the dogs' unpredictability and aggression. In my view, both Siza and Biggles acted unpredictably and aggressively on 2 February 2025 and on previous occasions by wandering at large and harassing members of the public and/or their pets. I find the potential harm caused by the dogs to be significant. VKI was physically and mentally harmed by the incident on 2 February 2025. A dog named Arlo was nipped at by either Biggles or Siza on 4 February 2022. A dog named Sally was injured by Biggles in the attack on 26 June 2023 and required veterinary treatment by way of a staple for the wound, pain relief and antibiotics. A postman has been bruised by Siza on 14 May 2019. There have been other examples of harassing behaviour. In my view, the dogs pose an appreciable risk to public safety.
4. There was much dispute in this case about the weight that the Tribunal should put on the evidence of various witnesses. I agree with the submissions of the applicant that the hearing of this matter was to some extent inflamed by the kinds of passions one might expect having regard to the subject matter. On the one hand, the applicant and her husband are vulnerable people whose cherished dogs are at risk of destruction. On the other hand, VKI is the victim of a harrowing and traumatic attack by two dogs.[55] I do approach their evidence with these issues in mind. In my view, none of the witnesses that appeared before me were "perfect" witnesses and nor would I expect them to be. I place some weight on their evidence, but not full weight given none of the witnesses were independent or objective.
5. I accept there were difficulties with VKI's evidence, and, at times, he was angry, defensive, argumentative and annoyed when giving his evidence particularly during cross-examination. I also accept that there were some inconsistencies with his evidence (for example, he initially gave evidence that he knocked on the fence but later gave evidence that he kicked the fence) and he tended to argue against reasonable propositions (for example, that there was frosted glass on the door that impacted his vision). I also note that VKI contacted the Tribunal directly to advance further evidence and submissions ex parte[56] and created notes to jog his memory when giving evidence.[57] However, I do acknowledge that VKI is not a lawyer and his evidence on these issues is that he was not aware this was inappropriate. I also note that VKI wrote an email to the Tribunal stating that he could not attend the tribunal due to "mental incompetence".[58] VKI's memory also seemed to fail at times during cross-examination. The applicant submits that VKI's evidence demonstrated that he was not independent or there to assist the Tribunal reach the correct and preferrable decision. I accept that VKI is not an independent witness, but I did not reach the conclusion that he was deliberately trying to mislead the Tribunal. His evidence should be seen in the context of the traumatic incident that occurred on 2 February 2025. Indeed, he gave evidence that he suffers from depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he is suffering very badly with his mental health. Further, he has been unable to work since the 2 February 2025 incident. I also note that initially the applicant took the position that VKI trespassed, and much cross-examination occurred on this issue. I also view VKI's evidence in the context of him being cross-examined on this issue, VKI being annoyed about this and the position that VKI trespassed eventually being abandoned by the applicant. Nevertheless, I do treat VKI's evidence with caution.
6. As acknowledged by the applicant, aspects of her husband's evidence were unsatisfactory and contradictory, and the applicant also struggled to remember certain aspects of her evidence.[59] For example, in my view, the applicant's husband gave incorrect evidence about the signage at the property on 2 February 2025. The applicant's husband gave evidence that the signage at the property on 2 February 2025 included a sign 'Beware of the Dogs', 'No Entry' and 'Enter at Own Risk' when other witnesses (the applicant, VKI and IXD) gave evidence that the only signage as at that date was a sign that said 'Beware of the Dogs'. I prefer the evidence of the applicant, VKI and IXD to the applicant's husband's evidence about the signage. In my view, both the applicant and her husband did demonstrate a lack of insight in their evidence. Again, I did not form the view that the applicant or her husband were deliberately trying to mislead the Tribunal, but I do treat their evidence with caution due to these issues. I also note that the applicant and her husband clearly love their dogs, and their evidence needs to be seen in this light.
7. The applicant submits that IXD is an independent and objective witness. I reject that submission. IXD lives on the property with the applicant and her husband so in that sense is not independent. Again, I place weight on his evidence, but not full weight given he is not an objective, independent witness. There is some debate about whether IXD was present on the relevant day on 2 February 2025. IXD gave evidence that he was, but no other witness gave this evidence. Further, IXD gave evidence that VKI had previously attended the property whereas VKI denied this. I do not consider it necessary to make a finding on these issues.
8. There was also some dispute in this case about whether the gate was partially opened, whether VKI banged on the fence or announced himself prior to entering the applicant's property on 2 February 2025, what the circumstances of him approaching the applicant's door were and what happened when VKI got to the applicant's door.[60] It is difficult for me to make factual findings about these matters because the different version of events between the applicant, the applicant's husband and VKI are stark in relation to these issues. Further, it is not entirely clear to me the relevance of some of these issues as I understand the applicant accepts that VKI had an implied licence to enter her property and was not trespassing at the time he was bitten by the applicant's dogs.
9. The applicant submits it is not reasonably open to the Tribunal to find that VKI banged on the fence and yelled out and the evidence is there was no banging on the fence and no yelling which is consistent with IXD's evidence and the dogs not reacting.[61] Even assuming this is so, not much turns on this because the applicant admits that VKI had an implied licence to enter the property, and this was not revoked as at the time of the attack by the dogs. I accept that prior to VKI entering through the gate, he saw a 'Beware of the Dog' sign on the fence, VKI peered over the fence and could not see any dogs and entered through the gate and went to the front door.[62] It is not necessary for me to make a finding about whether the gate was partially opened or not. I accept that there was a locking mechanism at the gate but not much turns on this because VKI was able to enter.
10. In relation to the circumstances of VKI approaching the door, I consider it likely that VKI did announce himself, however, the applicant did not hear this because her dogs were "play fighting" (as the applicant described) and barking. VKI describes the dog at this stage barking, baring their teeth and attacking each other in a savage manner. I find that the dogs were "play fighting" with each other and barking because, in my view, the applicant had a better view of the dogs and VKI's view would have been obscured due to the frosted panel.[63]
11. In relation to whether VKI showed his identification, I consider that even if he did, the applicant did not see it. I make this finding based on the applicant's evidence, the applicant's husband's evidence (he says VKI did not have any identification)[64] and, further, there is a frosted panel[65] through which the applicant would not have been able to see VKI's identification. I accept that the door was as described by the applicant and frosted and that prior to opening the door, the applicant did not know the identity of VKI and could not see through the door and assumed that VKI was IXD.
12. I accept that the applicant opened the door because she assumed it was IXD and she would not have opened the door had she been of the belief it was a stranger.
13. In relation to what happened when VKI got to the door, I understand that there is no dispute that both Biggles and Siza attacked VKI. VKI was attacked by Biggles and Siza when the applicant opened the door and Biggles and Siza "bolted out" by going under the applicant's wheelchair according to the applicant's evidence. The applicant admitted in her evidence that Biggles latched onto VKI's arm, and she assumes that Siza "bolted" into VKI's groin area. Biggles and Siza bit VKI on the arm and on the groin region, respectively.[66]
14. There was some dispute as to whether Biggles shook his head or not. VKI says he did, and the applicant says he did not. It is not necessary for me to make a finding about whether Biggles shook his head.
15. I am satisfied, at least in relation to both Biggles and Siza that s 44(2) of the Act has been met, and they have attacked and harassed a member of the public on 2 February 2025 and that the applicant was the person responsible for the dogs on 2 February 2025.[67] To the applicant's credit, the applicant does not dispute that on 2 February 2025, Biggles and Siza harassed, attacked, or chased VKI.[68]
16. I find the attack was vicious and that VKI suffered nine puncture wounds to his arm and an open wound on his penis.[69] VKI was treated with antibiotics.[70] The physical impacts of the attack were not long lasting, but the mental effects were.[71] VKI suffers from stress and post-traumatic stress disorder and has been unable to return to work.
17. There was some dispute about the length of the attack, with reference to three minutes from VKI to the applicant stating it lasted for a matter of seconds.[72] The applicant gave evidence that the incident went for up to ten seconds. VKI conceded in his evidence that the attack felt like an hour, but it may have lasted for twenty seconds. I find that the attack lasted for several seconds and that the attack was vicious and caused injury.
18. The applicant accepts that there is no proper basis to conclude that either Biggles or Siza were being used in the reasonable defence of a person or property when they bit VKI.[73] I agree with that position.
19. VKI was not trespassing. I do not consider any relevant defences apply.
20. I note that Siza belongs to the applicant's son, however, Siza was under the care and control of the applicant at the relevant time. I find that at the time of the 2 February 2025 incident, the applicant owned Biggles and was responsible for the control of Siza and both of those dogs attacked a person, being VKI, in circumstances that would constitute an offence against the Act. I find s 59A(3)(a) of the Act is met.
21. There was some dispute about the actions of VKI, the applicant and her husband after the attack. For example, VKI says that the applicant did not help him and stated it was his fault. Further, the applicant points out that VKI was able to serve some documents after the attack. The applicant claims that she yelled for Biggles to stop and yelled for her husband to come and help. VKI also claims that the applicant's husband did nothing to prevent the attack. I place little weight on the behaviour of the applicant, her husband and VKI after the attack as there was a traumatising incident occurring shortly before. The fact that VKI was able to serve some papers takes nothing away from his injuries and the trauma he faced. Further, even if the applicant did not assist, she has clear physical difficulties, and I accept she may have been in shock.
22. I find that s 59A(3)(b) of the Act is met because as of 2 February 2025, Biggles was under a Control (Dangerous Dog) order.[74] I also note that as of 2 February 2025, Siza was subject to a Control (Menacing Dog) Order.[75]
23. I have carefully considered whether s 59A(4)(a) of the Act applies. As B Doyle J explained in Wilson v City of Onkaparinga [2024] SASC 139 at [107], s 59A(4)(a) casts both the persuasive and the evidentiary burden on the applicant. The applicant must positively satisfy the Tribunal that the attack was neither intentional, nor a consequence of her failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack.[76]
24. I accept that the applicant did not intend the attack on 2 February 2025 to occur. However, in my view there was a failure on the part of the applicant to take all reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event.
25. Even accepting that the applicant did not know VKI was at the door and she assumed it was IXD, this was an incorrect assumption on her behalf. Knowing her dogs' history, reasonable steps to prevent the attack would have included ensuring the fence was secure and ascertaining the identity of the person at the door. I accept that 'reasonable' does not include all steps, but in my view, in this case, it was reasonable for the applicant to ascertain the identity of the person at the door prior to opening the door.
26. I have considered the submissions of the applicant that it was not unreasonable for her to fail to ascertain the identity of VKI because the attack occurred on her property (not in public) and she assumed it was IXD in the context of there being a gate, IXD lived on the property, she felt it was an emergency,[77] postmen did not come to the door and she thought the dogs would have difficulty exiting the door with her wheelchair in the way. I have carefully considered this submission however I reject it for several reasons. First, the dogs were play fighting and barking near the door.[78] In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the applicant to take a cautious approach and ascertain the identity of the person at the door and restrain the dogs prior to opening the door. Secondly, I accept the submission of the applicant that not all steps need to be taken only reasonable steps. For example, if the fence was locked such that it could not be opened from the outside and the dogs were restrained inside the applicant's premises, it may have been reasonable for her to infer that IXD was at the door and open the door. However, in circumstances whereby the gate could be opened from the outside, the dogs were barking and play fighting and were not restrained, it was not reasonable for the applicant to make this assumption. Finally, in my view, given the dogs' history, a reasonable person would be cautious and take reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the person at the door prior to opening the door particularly when the dogs are nearby and play fighting and barking.[79] I have considered the applicant's submission that it is physically impossible for her to restrain her dogs. Whilst I accept this evidence and I am sympathetic of her physical disabilities, in my view the objects of the Act, including to encourage responsible dog ownership, to reduce public nuisance caused by dogs and to promote the effective management of dogs, must be given priority.
27. I also accept the submission of the respondent that the applicant was required to have effective control of her dogs pursuant to the relevant council orders[80] and that she should have either secured them in her home or, if they were in the front yard, ensured that they were restrained.[81] I also accept that the applicant should have had warning signs of the kind prescribed by the Dog and Cat Management Board warning people that a dangerous dog is kept on the premises.[82] This was a requirement of the orders that Biggles was subject to under the Act and, in my view, by the applicant failing to display the appropriate signage, this is a breach of s 55(1) of the Act.[83] Further, the applicant should have arranged for training for Biggles and Siza as required by their Council orders.[84]
28. In summary, in my view, the below are all reasonable steps that the applicant failed to take to prevent the 2 February 2025 incident:

(a) the fence should have been locked such that it could not be opened from the outside;

(b) the applicant should have ascertained the identity of the person at the door prior to opening the door;

(c) the applicant should have had effective control of her dogs prior to opening the door;

(d) the applicant should have had warning signs of the kind prescribed by the Dog and Cat Management Board warning people that a dangerous dog is kept on the premises; and

(e) the applicant should have arranged for training for Biggles and Siza as required by their Council orders.

1. For the above reasons, in my view, s 59A(4)(a) of the Act does not apply.
2. Even though I am satisfied that the criteria for making a prohibition order have been met, I accept that I still have discretion to affirm, vary or set aside the order if that is the correct and preferrable outcome. The applicant submits that even if a prohibition order may be made in this case, the correct and preferable decision is that a prohibition order ought not be made.[85]
3. In my view, it is relevant to such discretion to consider what is the correct and preferrable decision in all the circumstances, what is the least restrictive option that is consistent with the objects of the Act and how is the protection of the community best served. In my view, destruction of a dog is the last resort.
4. One of the relevant factors in this case is that the respondent has allowed Siza to remain in the applicant's care.[86] I raised this as an issue with the respondent at the hearing, but it was not addressed in the respondent's closing submissions. I accept that Siza has diabetes and that the respondent may not have sufficient personnel to administer insulin twice a day.[87] However, in my view, to leave Siza in the applicant's care is contradictory to the order that the Council is asking me to affirm. I infer that if the respondent had serious concerns regarding community safety in relation to Siza, they would not have allowed Siza to remain in the applicant's care. I place weight on this factor and the fact that there is no evidence that Siza has been a risk to the public since 2 February 2025 despite being in the applicant's care.
5. I also place weight on the applicant's argument that there is no evidence that the applicant, the applicant's husband, previous people that have lived on the property and the applicant's children have had any negative interactions with Biggles or Siza.[88] Having said that it appears that the children are never left alone with the dogs.[89]
6. I have also considered as part of my discretion the impact of any order on the applicant, her husband and the dogs. I accept that if the dogs are destroyed that the impact on the applicant and her husband will be immense. I also place weight on the applicant's husband's serious mental health issues and the applicant's physical disabilities and the fact that these proceedings have been long and arduous, and the dogs have been on "death row" for some time. The applicant's husband's General Practitioner of 17 years has provided a letter to the Tribunal explaining the positive effect of Biggles on his mental health and the significant risk Biggles' destruction will pose to his mental health.[90] I accept the General Practitioner's letter but ultimately, the objects of the Act including responsible dog ownership and management of dogs need to be given the most weight.
7. I also acknowledge and place weight on the additional steps that the applicant and her husband have taken to reduce the chance of another attack, including:[91]

(a) Installing greater signage around their property. Most relevantly, the applicant submits they have installed signs around the property that the applicant says revokes the implied licence to enter the property. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that in addition to the sign 'Beware of the Dogs' which was present on 2 February 2025, there are now a 'Dangerous Guard Dogs' and 'Do Not Trespass' sign.[92] In these circumstances, the applicant submits that it is not conceivable that a stranger would come to the door in the future (at least without trespassing);

(b) The applicant and her husband have installed a further locking mechanism on the gate which the applicant submits is unable to be opened from the outside. The applicant submits the purpose of this is that there is never again a circumstance where a stranger appears unannounced at the door;

(c) The applicant and her husband have posted a mobile telephone number to the front gate with an instruction that if anyone wishes to enter the property, they are first to call. This is to prevent any circumstances where the dogs might be surprised by somebody coming onto the property;

(d) The applicant and her husband have installed a doorbell on the outside of the gate;

(e) The applicant and her husband have installed a screen door to act as a second barrier between the inside and outside of the house.

1. I accept that the steps that the applicant and her husband have taken will reduce risk to the public. However, I do place some reduced weight on this consideration as, in my view, this work should have occurred some time ago given the dogs' history. I also place reduced weight on these improvements, as I understand there is some evidence that the applicant intends on selling her home.[93] I have also placed reduced weight on these improvements as the applicant has in the past said that the problem of Siza escaping has been "rectified",[94] that the gate has been repaired[95] and that "we will make sure it doesn't happen again"[96] when problems have arisen since.
2. I also place weight on the history of this case, the number of alleged incidents and breaches. On 12 September 2023 a Control (Menacing Dog) Order was made in relation to Siza and a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order in relation to Biggles and, despite those orders, the 2 February 2025 incident occurred. Further, there have been several incidents over a number of years. The incidents include the dogs escaping on multiple occasions even when subject to council orders, one dog (inferred to be Siza) on 1 May 2018 biting a postman by the trousers, Siza wandering at large and charging at a postman on three separate occasions,[97] Siza being aggressive to a Pastor by advancing towards the Pastor and snarling and baring her teeth,[98] Siza running and growling at a member of the public and her dog,[99] Biggles and Siza running up to a member of the public and one of them nipping at the dog's legs,[100] Biggles and Siza rushing towards a member of the public and their dog and Biggles (inferred to be Biggles because described as "white dog")[101] grabbing a dog on the back right hand quarter with his teeth and throwing her about two metres away.[102] The member of the public's dog required veterinary treatment by way of a staple for the wound, pain relief and antibiotics.[103]
3. The applicant did not produce any evidence disputing the previous incidents. I accept those incidents have not been proven and I place some reduced weight on them given they are allegations. Further, some of the allegations are vague. For example, in relation to some of the allegations the identity of the dog is inferred not proven. Further, it appears that some allegations relate to when the applicant's son or husband was responsible for the dog, not necessarily the applicant.[104] Further, many of the incidents occurred in May 2019 when the applicant states that that there was a problem with the fence.[105] I do however place weight on those incidents given the number of similar incidents over many years.
4. I also note with some concern that the behaviour of the dogs seems to be getting worse over time with two recent incidents (on 2 February 2025 and 26 June 2023) being very serious and involving biting and the causation of injuries. I am also concerned that Biggles and Siza have seemingly behaved poorly together, and I am concerned that on 2 February 2025 they appeared to act in concert to attack VKI.
5. I also place weight on failures on the part of the applicant to comply with previous council orders. In my view, she is not a responsible dog owner and nor is her husband. For example, the dogs have been seen wandering at large despite council orders in place, the dogs have attacked and harassed members of the public and/or their pets on a number of occasions and the dogs have not been registered on a number of occasions.[106] I agree with the submissions of the respondent that the applicant has failed to ensure that her dogs are effectively managed in accordance with her responsibilities as a dog owner under the Act and has a history of not complying with orders under the Act.[107]
6. I have also considered as relevant to my discretion that the dogs' training has not been addressed. I agree with the submissions of the respondent that this is a fundamental requirement to the previous orders imposed in relation to Biggles and Siza and this is also relevant to the Tribunal's discretion.[108] The fact is the applicant was required to organise training for Biggles and Siza and there is no evidence that she has done so.
7. I also place weight on an assessment of Dr Lordan from Vets4Pets, dated 7 May 2025. Dr Lordan states that Siza has been a patient for approximately six years. Dr Lordan states that Siza has had numerous visits, extended hospital stays, and regular day stays with blood sampling and other testing involved. During the visits, Siza has interacted with numerous staff members and Siza is well behaved. Initially, due to Siza's size and concerns for staff safety with an unknown dog, she was muzzled however she has not been muzzled for some time and staff are comfortable handling and treating Siza without muzzling. Dr Lordan states "In my professional opinion I do not believe that Siza needs to be euthanised due to aggression or fear of biting in public unprovoked. Dogs are unpredictable and every dog can bite when pushed to their limits, however from my experience with Siza I feel she is unlikely to bite unless severely provoked. I have however not visited Siza at home so I cannot comment on any behaviour she may display at home".[109] I place some weight on the opinion of Dr Lordan that Siza ought not be euthanised but reduced weight as there is no evidence that Dr Lordan is aware of previous incidents involving Siza, including the 2 February 2025 incident. Further, Dr Lordan's opinion that Siza is unlikely to bite unless severely provoked is not consistent with the 2 February 2025 incident. Siza was not provoked and yet bit VKI. All it took for Siza to bite was a stranger banging at the door and the door being open. I do not consider this provocation. Siza acted very unpredictably and aggressively that day without provocation.
8. I also place weight on the behavioural assessment report in relation to Biggles, completed by Ms Rosser, Behaviour Trainer, dated 14 April 2025.[110] Ms Rosser is an approved trainer for the Dog and Cat Management Board.[111] During that assessment, the applicant stated via a questionnaire that quite a few times their gates have not been closed properly and when a dog and owner walk past, Biggles and Siza have attacked the dog.[112] The applicant described Biggles as placid however admitted that if Biggles thinks she or her husband may be in danger or if there are strangers, he seems aggressive.[113] The applicant could not explain the 2 February 2025 incident but admitted that when the dogs are together, they can be bullies.[114]
9. Ms Rosser opines that Biggles engaged in 'lip licking'[115] which is said to be a 'fiddle behaviour'. The assessor says that fiddling can be a warning sign before impending aggression.[116] The assessor states "My main concern is the safety of the community. Given the information I have, it is impossible for me to determine exactly what happened, and I cannot guarantee that it will not happen again. However, Biggles did not use aggressive or antisocial behaviour towards me .... He did use flight and freeze behaviours. I did not observe Biggles to be especially dangerous. His behaviour was within the ordinary range expected of a typical dog in that environment... The only way to ensure that the unwanted behaviour never repeats in the future would be to have Biggles humanely euthanised; however, I do not think this is necessary if the [the applicant and her husband] follow all recommendations from the council and me".[117] The assessor makes various recommendations including that the property be secured, that dangerous dog orders are made, that Biggles is trained to wear a muzzle, collar and lead and that when Biggles and Siza pass away that a prohibition order is made to prevent them from adopting other dogs. The assessor also opines that Biggles likely suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder and that Biggles ought to be assessed by a behavioural vet for a diagnosis and medical treatment plan.[118]
10. I do place weight on Ms Rosser's opinion that it is not necessary for Biggles to be euthanised but some reduced weight noting that it appears Ms Rosser only spent an hour and a half with Biggles,[119] her acknowledgement that the assessment occurred in a kennel environment which is stressful for most dogs[120] and her sensible concession that her behavioural assessment cannot predict Biggles' future behaviour choices and patterns in different contexts.[121] Further, given that the applicant has not complied with Council orders in the past, I do not have confidence that the applicant would comply with all recommendations from the Council and Ms Rosser.
11. There are factors that point towards the prohibition order being affirmed, including the number of incidents involving the dogs, no evidence that training has been organised for the dogs as required by the Council orders, evidence that the dogs' behaviour is getting worse over time, multiple breaches of Council orders over a lengthy period and the fact that the applicant and her husband are not responsible dog owners. There are also factors that point towards it being revoked, including the impact on the applicant, her husband and her dogs, steps taken by the applicant to reduce risk, the fact that Siza has been in the applicant's care since 2 February 2025 without incident and the opinions of Ms Rosser and Dr Lordan. Ultimately, given the number of incidents and the seriousness of the 2 February 2025 and 26 June 2023 incidents, exercising my discretion, in my view the objects of the Act and protection of the public, including other animals, is best served by the prohibition order being affirmed.
12. I have also considered whether the dogs ought to be rehomed rather than destroyed. The applicant submits that in circumstances where the applicant's daughter lives on a large rural property[122] specifically designed for the care of dogs, and where she has indicated a willingness to take on the care of both dogs, any prohibition order should specify that Biggles and Siza be disposed of by way of rehoming with the applicant's daughter. The applicant's daughter lives with her husband rurally. She lives on a big property which used to provide accommodation for racing greyhounds. The applicant submits that it is well-equipped for the care of dogs, having two dog runs, a secure exercise area, which is fenced off from the remainder of the property, and secure pens where greyhounds were previously kept.[123] I note that the property is surrounded by a 6.5- foot high colorbond fence which the applicant's daughter says means that there is no possibility that Biggles or Siza could jump over the fence.[124] Further, the property is accessed by an electric gate for which an entrant needs the code.[125] I accept the evidence from the applicant's daughter that she will be extra vigilant if Biggles or Siza come and live with her given, they have escaped from the applicant's home. I also accept that the applicant's daughter is aware of the requirements of the Control (Dangerous Dog) Order for Biggles and Control (Menacing Dog) Order for Siza respectively.[126]
13. However, I note that the applicant's husband will also likely move into the shed on the applicant's daughter's property.[127] I also note the possibility that the applicant and her husband may both move in with the applicant's daughter.[128] This is of concern to me give the number of times the dogs have allegedly escaped from the applicant's property. Even accepting that the applicant's daughter is a responsible dog owner, the applicant and her husband have not been, and I am concerned about their ability to be in the future.
14. In my view, given the amount of concerns with Biggles and Siza over many years, the fact they have been involved in multiple attacks, the fact they have been wandering at large on multiple occasions, the fact that the applicant and her husband may move into their daughter's property and they have demonstrated they have not been responsible dog owners in the past and there is no evidence of training, I do not consider rehoming an appropriate option in this case.
15. I am also concerned that the applicant's daughter has three children aged seventeen, ten and eight respectively.[129] I acknowledge there is no evidence that Biggles or Siza have been aggressive to the applicant's daughter's children. Indeed, there is evidence that Biggles and Siza have interacted positively with the applicant's daughter's children.[130] I also place weight on the applicant's evidence that RUR and her children when they lived with the applicant got along with Biggles and Siza. However, Biggles and Siza acted very aggressively on 2 February 2025 without provocation or warning and their behaviour in the future may be difficult to predict. Further, I understand they are always supervised around children so it is not known how the dogs will behave if they have unsupervised time with children.
16. The applicant's daughter also has animals on her property, including two dachshunds.[131] I acknowledge there is evidence that Biggles and Siza have interacted positively with the applicant's daughter's pets.[132] However, there is evidence of the dogs harassing other dogs in the past. In relation to a question from the Council as to whether the dogs have any prior history of aggression towards other animals in particular dogs, the applicant admits that when Biggles sees a dog go by, he sometimes chases[133] and that Siza does have a history but that they both "go at the same time".[134]
17. I acknowledge that the applicant's daughter says that the dogs would be unable to jump over the fence and I accept that evidence but given the applicant and her husband's history of allowing their dogs to escape and wandering at large despite a high fence and that the applicant and her husband may live with their daughter in the future, I am concerned that unforeseen events may arise. For example, the applicant has admitted that if Biggles thinks she or her husband may be in danger or if there are strangers, he seems aggressive[135] and when the dogs are together, they can be bullies.[136]
18. I reject the submission of the applicant that there is no chance at all that either Biggles or Siza could be involved in any incident or even a remotely similar nature to that which occurred on 2 February 2025. Biggles and Siza have been involved in several concerning incidents in the past and I consider them to be unpredictable and aggressive. Even if the chance is low, given the gravity of the potential harm being high (which is demonstrated by the impact on VKI), in my view, the objects of the Act and community safety are best served by affirming the prohibition order.
19. There are unfortunately no less restrictive options than a prohibition order that are consistent with the objects of the Act and community safety. A Control (Dangerous Dog) Order with respect to Biggles and a Control (Menacing Dog) Order with respect to Siza was already in place as of 2 February 2025 and yet the incident occurred. Further, I do not have confidence that the applicant and her husband will comply with orders as they have not done so in the past. Even though I accept the applicant's daughter will do her best to comply with orders, given the applicant and her husband may be present, this adds a level of risk as they have not complied with orders in the past.
20. I have considered the length of the prohibition order. Given the number of steps that the applicant has taken to reduce risk to the public and the immense impact of this proceeding on the applicant and her husband and their willingness to assist the respondent in relation to its investigation regarding the 2 February 2025 incident[137] and other alleged incidents,[138] I did consider whether to vary the length of the prohibition order. However, given the repeated issues of concern over many years and that many, if not all, of the steps the applicant has now taken to reduce risk to the public should have occurred earlier, I do not consider it appropriate to vary the length of the order in this case. Hopefully the length of the order will give the applicant time to reflect on this matter, build her insight and understand her obligations under the Act.
21. If an applicant has good insight, it may be appropriate to reduce the length of the order, but I am concerned about the applicant and her husband's lack of insight in this case, and I do not consider reducing the length of the order is appropriate.
22. In my view, the following examples suggest the applicant has a lack of insight in relation to this case:

(a) The applicant initially claimed that MS trespassed on her property;[139]

(b) The applicant initially argued that her dogs were acting in reasonable defence of a person or property;[140]

(c) When describing Siza's conduct, which included Siza biting VKI, the applicant suggests that Siza "walked" into VKI's crotch due to being blind.[141] This is a serious downplaying of the incident;

(d) The applicant gave evidence that she informed VKI the incident was his fault as he should not have been on her property;

(e) The applicant gave evidence she was not aware of the requirements of the Control (Nuisance Dog) Order in relation to Siza despite being aware of the order;

(f) Despite paying a fine, the applicant gave evidence that she did not know the particular details of why the fine was issued;

(g) Failure to organise training for Siza and Biggles.

1. I also consider that the applicant's husband has a lack of insight in relation to this case. For example, the applicant's husband gave evidence that if VKI had an injury, it was his fault for not knocking on the gate and entering the property given there was signage warning VKI about the dogs.
2. I did consider whether there should be a different fate for Siza than Biggles given Siza has been in the care of the applicant without incident since 2 February 2025. However, in my view, this is not appropriate. Although Siza is an elderly dog and has health issues, this did not stop her being involved in the attack on 2 February 2025. Further, although there is no evidence of concern since 2 February 2025, Siza has managed to have lengthy periods of time without concern, but then incidents have later arisen.
3. In my view, the objects of the Act and protection of the public, including other animals, is best served by the prohibition order being affirmed.

1. I am satisfied that the prohibition order is the correct and preferrable decision.
2. My order remains stayed until the expiration of the period within which an appeal to the Supreme Court may be made.

[1] Respondent's written submissions, dated 30 April 2025, paragraph 4; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 6-7.

[2] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 1.

[3] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 72.

[4] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 49.

[5] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 7; Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 4; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 48.

[7] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 8.

[8] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 9.

[9] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 10.

[11] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 11; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 65.

[12] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 5.

[13] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 14.

[14] Affidavit of Susan Mary O'Toole, affirmed 9 September 2025.

[15] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 74.

[16] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 74.

[17] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 13; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[18] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 74.

[19] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[20] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 81.

[21] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 14; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[22] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 15.

[23] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9 and 118.

[24] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 88.

[25] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[26] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 88.

[27] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraphs 17-18.

[28] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 88 and 140

[29] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 19; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 10.

[30] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 21; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 10, 141-142.

[31] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 101-102, 144-142.

[32] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 22; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 10.

[33] Statement of the applicant, undated, page 2.

[34] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 147 and 162.

[36] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 10.

[37] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 149.

[38] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraphs 24-25.

[39] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 165.

[40] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 167.

[41] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 26; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 162.

[42] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 172-173.

[43] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 37 and 172-173.

[44] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9.

[45] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraphs 27-28; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 169-171.

[46] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11, 184 and 189.

[47] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 184.

[48] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 189.

[49] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 199-200.

[50] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraphs 32-33; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 11.

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

[52] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 6-14.

[53] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 13.

[54] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 44, 48-49.

[55] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 15.

[56] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 18 and 21.

[59] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 86.

[60] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 16.

[61] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 32.

[62] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 42.

[64] Statement of the applicant's husband, undated.

[65] Affidavit of the applicant, sworn 8 August 2025.

[66] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 14.

[67] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 49.

[68] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 6.

[69] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 6; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 62.

[70] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 62.

[71] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 62.

[72] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 52.

[73] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 4.

[74] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 4.

[75] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 4.

[76] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 55.

[77] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 59.

[78] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 43.

[79] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 43.

[80] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 38.

[81] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 39.

[82] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 39.

[83] Respondent's written submissions, dated 30 April 2025, paragraph 25 and 28.

[84] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 49.

[85] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 54.

[86] Affidavit of Susan Mary O'Toole, affirmed 9 September 2025.

[87] Affidavit of Susan Mary O'Toole, affirmed 9 September 2025.

[88] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 10.

[89] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 52.

[90] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 9; Exhibit A14.

[91] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 71.

[93] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 62.

[94] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 100.

[95] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 156.

[96] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 102.

[97] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 14, 17 and 19.

[98] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 20.

[99] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 22

[100] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 24.

[101] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 37.

[102] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 27.

[103] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 28.

[104] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 9 and 155.

[105] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 102.

[106] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 81, 140 and 151.

[107] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 2; Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 168, 178 and 205.

[108] Respondent's written closing submissions, dated 22 October 2025, paragraph 2.

[116] Respondent's written submissions, dated 30 April 2025, paragraph 55; Exhibit A17, page 4.

[123] Applicant's written closing submissions, dated 15 September 2025, paragraph 12; Exhibit A15.

[124] Affidavit of the applicant's daughter, GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[125] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[126] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[127] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[128] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[129] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[130] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[131] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[132] Affidavit of GOL, affirmed 11 September 2025.

[133] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 50.

[134] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 50.

[137] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, pages 46 to 54.

[138] Section 35 Statement of Reasons and Book of Documents, page 98, 153.

[139] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, page 3.

[140] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 14..

[141] Outline of argument filed by the applicant, dated 16 April 2025, paragraph 42; Statement of the applicant, undated, page 3.