Tsalamangos v Brisbane City Council [2026] QCAT 90

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 21

Central Queensland Animal Society Inc. v Rockhampton Regional Council [2025] QCATA 35

Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2019] QCAT 80

Imbrogno & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2017] QCATA 148

Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58

Lee v Brisbane City Council (No 2) [2012] QCATA 64

Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121

R v Devine [1982] TASRp 16; (1982) 8 A Crim R 45

R v Hatch [2006] NSWCCA 330

R v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351

Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97

Vallance v The Queen [1961] HCA 42; (1961) 108 CLR 56

[1] The applicant ('Ms Tsalamangos') has made application to the Tribunal to review a decision of the respondent ('Council') for a destruction order (regulated dog) and information notice under section 127AA of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) ('AM Act') ('destruction order') dated 11 April 2025 ('original application'). Subsequently, on 24 April 2025, the original decision was reviewed and confirmed ('review decision').

[2] The destruction order and review decision are referred to below.

[3] Ms Tsalamangos' dog is named Gypsy Rose. She is a Bull Arab female dog microchip number 953010005787377 and tag number 704274.

[4] On 24 January 2024 Gypsy Rose was declared a dangerous dog under section 89(1)(a) of the AM Act.

[5] The destruction order sets out the decision to make a destruction order for Gypsy Rose. The grounds for the order are:

(a) Gypsy Rose is a regulated dog having been declared a dangerous dog on 24 January 2024; and

(b) on 28 March 2025 Gypsy Rose was seized by an authorized person under section 125(1)(a)(i) of AM Act on the ground the authorized person reasonably believed the dog has seriously attacked another animal.

[6] The order then sets out the reasons for the decision.

1. I am a delegate appointed by the CEO of the Brisbane City Council ('Council') under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 ('the Act').
2. On 21 April 2025, Tanya Tsalamangos ('the applicant') submitted a general review application requesting an internal review of the decision made on 1 April 2025 to issue a destruction order for the dog 'Gypsy Rose' ('the original decision').
3. Under the provisions of the Act, I have considered all facts relevant to the original decision including the material and representations made by the applicant, and I have decided to confirm the original decision. The destruction order will remain in place.

[8] The decision then sets out the reasons for the decision.

[9] On 26 March 2024 Ms Tsalamangos and Gypsy Rose were present in Thompson Estate Reserve Park in Greenslopes. The dog was not wearing a muzzle or regulated collar. The owner of the other dog, Ms Kim, states Gypsy Rose was not restrained by a leash and rushed at her dog, a dog named Alba, biting the dog on the right-hand side and chest. The dog suffered puncture wounds in the right lateral thoracic with deep pocketing, a puncture to the right ventral abdomen with the muscle layer exposed and a puncture to the dorsal mid lumbar region.

[10] Ms Kim recorded Ms Tsalamangos and Gypsy Rose leaving the scene of the incident. The recording shows Gypsy Rose was not wearing a muzzle or regulated collar.

[11] On 28 March 2025 Council officers observed Ms Tsalamangos and Gypsy Rose entering her home in Greenslopes. Gypsy Rose, again, was not wearing a muzzle or regulated collar.

[12] Ms Tsalamangos admitted taking Gypsy Rose for a walk in the park on 26 March 2025. She said Gypsy Rose was wearing a muzzle but not wearing a regulated collar. There was no dangerous dog sign at the home, and it did not otherwise comply with the requirements for keeping a regulated dog.

[13] The review decision summarises Ms Tsalamangos' submissions and the legislative framework. It then sets out the findings. They include findings Gypsy Rose seriously attacked Tilly on 7 November 2023 ('first incident') and Alba on 25 March 2025 ('second incident'). The findings for the second incident are couched in the following terms:

1. The victim gives a clear account of her dog being attack which is consistent with the facts.
2. The injuries documented in the veterinary reports show that the injuries sustained by the complainant's dog were wounds, and in my assessment amount to grievous bodily harm.
3. Section 127AA of the Act defines seriously attack in relation to an animal as an to attack an animal in such a way that it caused the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal.
4. The complainant has taken a video of the attacking dog and relevant person for the dog at the time. I am satisfied that the video shows the applicant and Gypsy Rose.
5. The applicant has admitted to being present with Gypsy Rose and to an interaction between Gypsy Rose and the complainant's dog, but does not believe that an attack occurred.
6. I do not find the applicant's account of events is credible or consistent with the facts ascertained.

[14] A serious attack occurred, the decision continues, a destruction order must be made. Additionally, Ms Tsalamangos cannot take control of Gypsy Rose for the reasons set out in paragraph 24 of the decision.

[15] The conclusion of the decision is in the following terms:

1. For the above reasons I confirm the decision under section 127AA of the Act to issue a destruction order in relation to Gypsy Rose. For the purposes of section 127AA(6) of the Act the internal review is now finally decided.
2. Therefore Gypsy Rose will be destroyed after 14 days if an application for external review of the order is not made.

Section 21(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) documents

[16] The Council filed in the Tribunal the documents required by section 21(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ('QCAT Act'). The material includes the review decision, Council's logs, documents provided by Ms Brandon, Dr Clark, Ms Kim, Dr Hsieh and authorised persons, Mr Talbot, Mr Rashleigh, Mr Spencer, Mr Sweeney, Mr Scott, Mr Durante, Mr Rogan, Mr Singh and Mr Metcalf, and miscellaneous material.

[17] The documents have been reviewed by the Tribunal and taken into consideration in reaching a decision.

[18] The Council also submitted with the documents a video recording. The recording was played during the hearing.

[19] The Council filed in the Tribunal a written opening address. It is marked as exhibit R1.

[20] The Council outlines the relevant legislation. It then summarises the background to the proceeding.

[21] If a regulated dog is seized, the authorised person must make a destruction order for a dog if the dog has seriously attacked a person or an animal.[1] Seriously attack means:

(a) in relation to a person - attack the person in a way that causes the death of, or previous bodily harm or bodily harm to, the person; or

(b) in relation to an animal - attack the animal in a way that causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal.

[22] On the date of the second incident, 24 January 2024, Gypsy Rose was a regulated dangerous dog.

[23] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal an affidavit of Ms Bergamin. It was affirmed on 23 June 2025 and is marked as exhibit A1.

[24] She deposes to Gypsy Rose being very gentle and a beautiful girl. The dog escaped by jumping a front fence.

[25] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal an affidavit by Mr Edwards. It was sworn on 23 June 2025 and is marked as exhibit A2.

[26] He deposes to Gypsy Rose escaping from her home. She is a loving and intelligent dog and is not uncontrollable, aggressive or untrained.

[27] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal an affidavit by Ms Campbell. It was sworn on 24 June 2025 and is marked as exhibit A3.

[28] She describes Gypsy Rose as a friendly, playful, big puppy. She has never displayed aggression towards either her or her dogs.

[29] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal five affidavits. Four of the affidavits were sworn on 11 August 2025. The fifth affidavit is undated. They are marked as exhibits A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8.

[30] Ms Tsalamangos' first affidavit responds to the affidavit of Ms Kim. She swears Ms Kim did not have control of her dog at the time of the second incident.

[31] She draws attention to contradictory statements by Ms Kim. Gypsy Rose was restrained by a lead but escaped by jumping a fence. Ms Tsalamangos pursued the dog.

[32] Ms Kim's dog was not restrained by a leash, lead or another restraining device. Her dog was not seriously injured.

[33] Both dogs were responsible for the incident. Ms Kim's dog sustained a wound that needed to be 'flushed'.

[34] Ms Tsalamangos' second affidavit responds to the affidavit of Dr Hseih, the veterinary surgeon employed at Total Family Veterinary Clinic. She swears the photographs exhibited to Dr Hseih's affidavit show, '... scratches and what looks like the entry and exit point of the drainage tube ...' She later adds '... [t]hese photos do not indicate the full jaw bite patterns ...'

[35] Ms Tsalamangos' third affidavit deposes to her fence on her home in Ipswich. It complies with the requirements of the Council.

[36] The fourth affidavit of Ms Tsalamangos responds to the affidavit of Mr Singh, an authorised person employed by the Council.

[37] She swears Ms Kim's dog did not need immediate assistance.

[38] A statement between Mr Tsalamangos and Mr Singh, she swears, is fabricated.

[39] The fence on her property was more than 1.2 m high.

[40] The fifth affidavit of Ms Tsalamangos is undated. She deposes to emails exchanged by her and the Council drawing attention to several discrepancies.

[41] Tilly, the other dog involved in the first incident, was '... yanked and pulled around by her owner Lyn Brandon ...'

[42] The Ipswich City Council has inspected her property in Ipswich. They have made all material changes requested and it is fully compliant.

... Gypsy Rose has not demonstrated behaviour constituting significant harm external to the premises. There were two incidents in which I was present for both that were accompanied by circumstances beyond my control but by control of the other dog owners. A destruction order is Greg Rashleigh's answer to this. This is his personal opinion, not fact.

[44] The Council filed in the Tribunal seven affidavits. They are marked as exhibits R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8.

[45] Ms Kim is the owner of Alba, the other dog in the second incident. Her affidavit was sworn on 30 June 2025 and is marked as exhibit R2.

[46] On 26 March 2025, at about 10:00am, Gypsy Rose attacked Alba. She was bitten on the right-hand side of her ribs, her chest belly and left side of her back.

[47] The owner of Gypsy Rose, later identified as Ms Tsalamangos, seized Gypsy Rose by her collar, restrained her with a lead and started to walk away without giving any details. Ms Kim recorded the owner walking away on her mobile telephone.

[48] Ms Kim and her partner went to Total Care Family Veterinary Clinic in Holland Park West. Alba was admitted to the Clinic and received surgery.

[49] Mr Rashleigh is an authorised person employed by the Council. His affidavit was sworn on 15 July 2025 and is marked as exhibit R3.

[50] He deposes to the circumstances immediately following the first incident on 7 November 2023. He then goes on to confirm Ms Tsalamangos' receipt of the proposed declaration notice under section 90 of the AM Act and his decision to declare Gypsy Rose a dangerous dog.

[51] On 13 February 2024 he received an email and video recording from Ms Tsalamangos confirming she was walking Gypsy Rose at the time of the incidents and stating Gypsy Rose pulled the lead from her hand. Mr Rashleigh continues:

At no time did Gypsy have the other animal in her mouth, she did not shake the dog, pull the dog or have the other dog bailed up attacking it.

[52] He inspected Ms Tsalamangos' home in Greenslopes on 12 March 2024. He observed there was no 'dangerous dog' sign displayed at the home.

[53] Ms Tsalamangos later informed Mr Rashleigh Gypsy Rose now lives on a property in Ipswich.

[54] Mr Rashleigh became aware of the second incident on 28 March 2025. He spoke to Ms Tsalamangos by telephone on 31 March 2025 and she confirmed Gypsy Rose was wearing a muzzle, but she was unable to recall whether she was wearing a red and yellow collar. Ms Tsalamangos informed Mr Rashleigh there was no dog cage on the property in Greenslopes.

[55] Mr Rashleigh was informed by Ms Tsalamangos that Alba was not restrained by a lead on 26 March 2025 and there was no dog attack incident. He subsequently prepared and gave to Ms Tsalamangos a destruction order under section 127AA of the AM Act. Subsequently, Ms Tsalamangos informed Mr Rashleigh there was no attack on Alba, Gypsy Rose was restrained by a lead and asked whether the Council has the video recording showing Alba was not restrained by a lead.

[56] The affidavit exhibits a copy of the proposed declaration notice dated 1 January 2024 and correspondence.

[57] Mr Singh is in authorised person employed by the Council. His affidavit filed in the Tribunal was sworn on 15 July 2025.

[58] Mr Singh deposes to a telephone conversation with Ms Kim concerning the second incident on 26 March 2025 and the injuries to Alba. He continued his investigation of the incident and spoke to Ms Tsalamangos. She confirmed she took Gypsy Rose for a walk on 26 March 2025. However, she stated, Gypsy Rose did not attack another dog and was restrained by a lead, muzzled and was wearing a collar.

[59] He observed the side gates to the backyard of the home in Greenslopes were approximately 1.2 metres high and there were gaps between the fence and the home in the lattice.

[60] Mr Singh exhibits to his affidavit photographs of the park, Gypsy Rose and documents given by him to Ms Tsalamangos.

[61] Mr Thomas is an authorised officer employed by the Council. His affidavit filed in the Tribunal was sworn on 15 July 2025.

[62] Mr Thomas was present on 28 March 2025 when Mr Singh interviewed Ms Tsalamangos. She confirmed she took Gypsy Rose for a walk in the park, did not see the dog attack another dog and Gypsy Rose was restrained by a lead and was wearing a muzzle and collar.

[63] Dr Hsieh is a veterinary surgeon working at Total Care Family Veterinary Clinic in Woolloongabba. She treated Alba on 26 March 2025. The dog's injuries are described in the following terms:

(a) one puncture wound to the right lateral thoracic. The underlying muscle layer was exposed, deep pocketing evident;

(b) one puncture wound to the right ventral abdomen region. The underlying muscle layer was exposed;

(c) one puncture wound to the dorsal mid lumbar region; and

(d) deep pocketing of 10 centre metre noted from cranial to caudal wound; and

(e) the skin over the pocketing was cut and fur material noted.

[64] The injuries, in the opinion of Dr Hsieh, were bodily harm within the meaning of the term as defined in chapter 1 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

[65] The affidavit exhibits a copy of the patient history for Alba and nine photographs of the injuries to Alba.

[66] Dr Clark is a veterinary surgeon working in Animal Emergency Centre in Woolloongabba. Her affidavit filed in the Tribunal was sworn on 21 July 2025.

[67] She treated Tilly on 7 November 2023. In the patient history she describes the injuries to Tilly in the following terms:

Bite wound to right side over dorsal caudal thorax bruising around the area. Bloodstains on other parts of coat but no further wounds are found. Area clipped and flushed with some saline.

[68] Dr Clark expresses the view the injuries were bodily harm within the meaning of the term as defined in chapter 1 of part 1 of schedule 1 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).

[69] The exhibit to the affidavit is a copy of the patient history.

[70] Mr Talbot is an authorised person employed by the Council. His affidavit filed in the Tribunal was sworn on 31 July 2025.

[71] He deposes to a conversation with Ms Brandon, the owner of Tilly. Ms Brandon provided him with a copy of a photograph of the injury to the dog. The photograph is exhibited to the affidavit.

[72] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal closing submissions. She states she was present at the time of the first and second incidents and '... there were circumstances beyond my control leading up to those events ...'

[73] Gypsy Rose, Ms Tsalamangos submits, did not seek out to hurt the other dogs, she was quickly controlled by her collar and lead at the time of the altercations and there was human error in both circumstances.

[74] Ms Tsalamangos describes the first incident in the following terms:

[The owner of Tilly] stopped right in front of where we were standing at 80 Earl Street. Gypsy began jumping up and down and wagging her tail. The women did not walk on but just stood there. Gypsy then pushed her nose toward the other dog and began nuzzling the other dog. I began to pull Gypsy's lead away, however she pulled back and because I was wearing wedged heels I lost my balance and let go of her lead to prevent myself from falling over. The owner of the other dog began pulling her dog in a circular motion away from Gypsy. Gypsy followed her movements which made it difficult for me to pick up her lead again. Then the woman yanked her dog up into her arms. From what I could see Gypsy then grabbed the fur of the other dog and the woman began pulling her dog away from Gypsy. I then grabbed Gypsy's lead and pulled her away. The woman then walked toward the street, I asked if her dog was ok and another woman came from across the street to comfort her, as she was visibly upset and rightly so. I then noticed a small grey staffy dog running down the street toward us off lead. I did not want to get into another altercation, so I quickly took Gypsy back to 76 Earl street and shut the gate. I came back out perhaps a minute or two later and the off lead dog had been secured, but the woman and her little dog had gone. There was a man with reddish hair standing on the street past the 80 Earl street property and I assumed witnessed the event. So I gave him my number and asked him to give it to her when she returned, as I then had to go to work. At no time did I think Gypsy had bitten her dog and the woman had not indicated at the time her dog had been bitten.

[75] She submits the owner of Alba and she were at fault for the second incident. She continues:

... The other dog was also not on a lead. If I had known the other dog was injured I would not have left the oval. However the woman started yelling at me and following me and her dog had run off. In both circumstances the dogs were bought to veterinarian to be checked out and have the wounds flushed as you would with any dog bite. This required the dogs to undergo anaesthesia. On arrival at the veterinarian surgery both dogs were ambulating and not displaying lame behaviour that would be expected with a serious attack ...

[76] Ms Tsalamangos refers to the decision of the Tribunal in Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council[2] ('Cutbush'). The decision concerns three incidents while Gypsy Rose was involved in two incidents. The incident, on 7 November 2023, Ms Tsalamangos submits, '... occurred whilst in my presence and there were extenuating circumstances resulting in what I believe to be a non-serious injury to another dog.'

[77] On the balance of probabilities, Ms Tsalamangos submits, it is proven she can be out in the public with no incidents as evident in the time she has been in my keeping at Ipswich and the times she did manage to escape the property before and after the dangerous dog declaration. Gypsy Rose has a beautiful temperament, and she can be trained.

[78] Ms Tsalamangos submits she has done her utmost to comply with the requirements for a regulated dog. She draws attention to the requirements suggesting she complies.

[79] Gypsy Rose was wearing a muzzle when she left her home in Greenslopes. She suggests the muzzle came off while the dogs were fighting.

[80] The Council's closing submissions is divided into parts as follows:

(a) relevant evidence;

(b) Council's submissions relevant to section 127AA(2) of AM Act;

(c) Council's submissions relevant to section 127AA(3) of the AM Act;

(d) conclusion; and

(e) orders sought.

[81] On 24 January 2024 Gypsy Rose was a regulated dangerous dog.

[82] Immediately following the second incident, Ms Kim, the owner of Alba, recorded Ms Tsalamangos and Gypsy Rose walking away. The video recording shows Gypsy Rose was not wearing a muzzle or regulated collar.

[83] The injuries to Alba, deposed to by Dr Hsieh, included multiple puncture wounds exposing the underlying muscle layer.

[84] Ms Tsalamangos denied Gypsy Rose attacked another dog. She said Gypsy Rose was restrained by a lead and was wearing a muzzle and regulated collar.

[85] Ms Tsalamangos admitted Gypsy Rose did not have a dog cage at Greenslopes.

Council's submissions relevant to section 127AA(2) of AM Act

[86] It is clear from the evidence of Ms Kim, it is submitted, Gypsy Rose attacked her dog on 26 March 2025. In the video recording, Ms Tsalamangos' dog does not appear to be injured or distressed. The injuries to Alba were multiple puncture wounds exposing the muscle layer and constituted a serious attack as defined.

[87] The Council submits Ms Tsalamangos lied about Gypsy Rose wearing a muzzle and regulated collar. The lies have a material bearing on Ms Tsalamangos' credibility when assessing her version of the incident.

Council's submissions relevant to section 127AA(3) of the AM Act

[88] If Gypsy Rose did not seriously attack Gypsy Rose on 26 March 2025, the Council submits the discretionary test weighs in favour of upholding the review decision under section 127AA(3) of the AM Act. The considerations of the objectives of the Act, in combination with the factors proscribed in Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management[3] ('Nguyen') and Cutbush, Gypsy Rose cannot be controlled by Ms Tsalamangos and is a threat to the safety of other animals to the extent the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by destruction of the dog.

[89] The considerations are spelt out by the Council under the following headings:

(a) any other relevant history of the behaviour of the dog go, including the circumstances giving rise to the declaration the dog was a regulated dog;

(b) the current behaviour of the dog, including whether the behaviour has been, and/or could be, modified through appropriate training;

(c) the arrangements for the dog at its place of residence, including the security of any enclosure and whether any interaction by the dog with persons, including household members and other persons entering upon the property, post a threat of harm to such persons;

(d) the risk the dog poses to community health or safety, including the risk of harm to people and other animals outside the place of residence of the dog;

(e) compliance by the owner of the dog with any permit conditions imposed as a result of the dog being declared a regulated dog;

(f) whether the owner of the dog demonstrates insight into and understanding of the dog's behaviour and has acted appropriately to mitigate any risk posed by the dog to people or animals;

(g) the rights of individuals, including the owner of the dog.

[90] The conclusion, the Council submits, under section 127AA(2) of the AM Act the authorised person must make a destruction order for Gypsy Rose. If there was no serious attack on 26 March 2025, the Council submits, the decision on 24 April 2025 must be confirmed under section 127AA(3) of the Act taking into consideration the purposes of the Act and the matters set out in Nguyen and Cutbush and Gypsy Rose cannot be controlled for the safety of other animals.

[91] Ms Tsalamangos, after confirming the contents of her affidavits, gave evidence at the hearing. She was asked about the second incident and stated:

Gypsy was in the dog park, and I had her lead to her, and she jumped over the fence ... She chased a bush turkey ...

[92] Gypsy Rose, Ms Tsalamangos stated in cross-examination, was wearing a muzzle but not wearing a regulated collar.

[93] She stated she was not the owner of Gypsy Rose at the time.

[94] She was aware Gypsy Rose needed to be muzzled.

[95] Ms Tsalamangos stated Alba was not restrained by a lead. They were going to play, and then started to fight. She was unable to recall weather Gypsy Rose was muzzled.

[96] Ms Tsalamangos recalled being interviewed by an authorised person. She denied lying when she said nothing happened between Gypsy Rose and Alba.

[97] Gypsy Rose, Ms Tsalamangos stated, did not have Alba in her mouth. She may have grabbed the dog's fur, '... but at no point did she have that dog in her mouth.'

[98] Alba did not suffer some significant wounds because of the second incident. The veterinary surgeon stated the dog suffered a single wound. Gypsy Rose did not seriously attack Alba.

[99] Ms Tsalamangos accepted Alba was bitten by Gypsy Rose. The dog sustained some 'graze' marks. The surgery undertaken was for flushing

[100] She denied Gypsy Rose was wearing a muzzle at the time was a lie. She stated there was not a dangerous dog sign in Greenslopes because she does not leave her there.

[101] Ms Kim confirmed the contents of her affidavit. Gypsy Rose, she said, was not wearing a muzzle.

[102] In the cross-examination by Ms Tsalamangos, Ms Kim stated Alba was not restrained by a lead for part of the time.

[103] Mr Rashleigh confirmed the contents of his affidavit.

[104] In cross-examination, Ms Tsalamangos disputed Alba required emergency surgery. She went on to submit the dog did not require emergency surgery because the surgery was performed later in the day.

[105] Mr Rashleigh declared Gypsy Rose a dangerous dog given the contents of the veterinary report, the injuries, photographs and statements by both parties.

[106] Mr Rashleigh was asked by Ms Tsalamangos whether he spent enough time looking at the veterinary report and deciding whether the contents were accurate. He responded:

Yes. From the vet report, I could ascertain that those bodily harm injuries occurred.

[107] He added he believed Alba was seriously attacked.

[108] Mr Singh confirmed the contents of his affidavit.

[109] In cross-examination by Ms Tsalamangos, Mr Singh said he was able to see the side gates. He added:

... one of the condition is they need to be kept where it's childproof, and with the dog weight, the fence, I believe, need to the 1.8 metre for that dog. But facing the house, left-hand side gate, that was approx. 1.2 metre, so which does not meet the - uh condition of the regulation.

[110] Mr Singh stated when he arrived at the home, he observed Ms Tsalamangos was walking Gypsy Rose without a muzzle and regulated collar.

[111] A dispute followed concerning identification of the person spoken to by Mr Singh. The person described himself as Ms Tsalamangos' partner. The person named is Ms Tsalamangos' son.

[112] Mr Thomas confirmed the contents of his affidavit.

[113] He seized Gypsy Rose because she was a regulated dog and involved in an attack.

[114] Dr Hseih confirmed the contents of her affidavit. In further examination-in-chief by Mr Andronicus, Dr Hseih confirmed she treated Alba for puncture wounds.

[115] In cross-examination by Ms Tsalamangos, Dr Hseih said:

... the thing about these dog bite wounds is that it never looks as bad on the outside; however, it's more when you go and actually go and assess it. That's why there was those deep puncture wounds, because it's more when the top canine and bottom canine latches down, that's where the pocketing is. And hence, you could see on the photo there was a lot of the shaved area, purely because when they go into those attack mode, that's what typically look like.

[116] She described the deep pocketing as tunnelling through underneath the fat layer. You can essentially allow a certain instrument to enter the wound itself.

[117] Dr Hseih said Alba was in distress. She gave her a pain relief injection.

[118] She described the attack on Alba as a serious attack. One puncture wound was at the top of the incision. The incision joined the two pocket wounds together. The drain was to remove debris.

[119] The purposes of the AM Act are spelt out in section 3. They are:

(a) provide for the identification of cats and dogs;

(b) provide for the registration of dogs;

(c) provide for the effective management of regulated dogs;

(d) promote the responsible ownership of cats and dogs;

(e) promote the responsible breeding of dogs; and

(f) prohibit the ownership of and particular dealings with dogs of particular breeds.

[120] The purposes are to be primarily achieved by the following:

(a) imposing obligations about identification devices for cats and dogs on their owners, sellers, authorized implanters and operators of pounds or shelters;

(b) imposing obligations on owners and veterinary surgeons about tattooing cats and dogs for desexing;

(c) imposing registration obligations on dog breeders;

(d) regulating the supply of dogs and the advertising of dogs for supply;

(e) providing for the sharing of information about dog breeders with particular agencies and entities that are responsible for animal welfare;

(f) imposing registration obligations on dog owners;

(g) imposing obligations on regulated dog owners;

(h) providing for the chief executive to establish a breeder register and regulated dog register;

(i) prohibiting ownership of dogs of particular breeds;

(j) appointing authorized persons to investigate, monitor and enforce compliance with this Act;

(k) requiring those who may provide PPID registry services to be licensed and imposing obligations on licensees;

(l) requiring local governments to keep a general register about dogs;

(m) imposing obligations on particular persons to exercise effective control of dogs in particular circumstances and ensure dogs do not attack or cause fear;

(n) prohibiting anyone from allowing or encouraging a dog to attack or cause fear to people or other animals.

[121] The power to declare a dog a regulated dog is found in part 4 of the Act. A local government may, by complying with the requirements of part 4, declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog (a dangerous dog declaration).[4] The declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog:

(a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or

(b) may, in the opinion of an authorized person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal.[5]

[122] Seriously attack is defined in subsection (6). It means, in relation to an animal, attack the animal in a way that causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal.

[123] The declaration may be made even if the dog is not in the local government's area.[6]

[124] A declaration under the section is a regulated dog declaration.[7]

[125] A proposed declaration notice must be given to the owner of the dog in accordance with section 90 of the Act.

[126] A relevant person for a declared dangerous dog must ensure each condition imposed under schedule 1, sections 2 to 6 and 8, or prescribed by regulation, in relation to the dog is complied with for the dog.[8] A relevant person for a declared dangerous dog means the owner of, or any responsible person for, a declared dangerous dog. The conditions include wearing a distinctive collar[9] and muzzling in or at a place other than the relevant place.[10]

[127] Section 127AA applies if the dog is a regulated dog and section 127 does not authorize the destruction of the dog. Section 127 empowers an authorized person to immediately destroy a dog in the circumstances described.

[128] An authorized person must make a destruction order in relation to the dog if the dog has seriously attacked an animal.[11] Seriously attack is again defined. It means, in relation to an animal, attack the animal in a way that causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal.[12]

(a) be served on:

(i) the registered owner of the dog; or

(ii) if there is no registered owner of the dog - any person who is an owner of, or a responsible person for, the dog; and

(b) include or be accompanied by an information notice about the decision to make the destruction order.[13]

[130] Ms Tsalamangos briefly summarises the reasons why the destruction order is wrong in the original application. She states:

- The other dog in the incident was off lead in the park.

- The other dog in the incident also injured my dog, however I didn't report it.

- The officers from the Brisbane city council seized my dog for not compliance, even though I told them the dog was not at its relevant place and it registered relevant place was my residence in Ipswich.

[131] The facts she thinks are important are briefly described in the following terms:

The two dogs were both in the altercation.

Both dogs were injured.

The other dog involved the was off lead in a non off lead area.

[132] In a proceeding in which the applicant is self-represented the identification of the issues is not without difficulty. In substance, Ms Tsalamangos asserts Gypsy Rose was muzzled at the time of the second incident but may have lost her muzzle before or during the incident. She was not wearing a regulated collar.

[133] Ms Tsalamangos further asserts Alba was not seriously attacked.

[134] Ms Tsalamangos states Ms Kim's dog was not restrained by a leash, lead or another restraining device. Alba was not seriously injured.

[135] Both dogs, Ms Tsalamangos states, were responsible for the incident. Alba sustained a wound that needed to be 'flushed'.

[136] Gypsy Rose, Ms Tsalamangos states in her written and oral testimony, was wearing a muzzle but not a regulated collar. Clearly, the dog was not wearing a muzzle at the time of the second incident. How the muzzle fell off, if indeed Gypsy Rose was wearing a muzzle, was not explained.

[137] Ms Tsalamangos did not look for the muzzle after the incident.

[138] Ms Kim stated in written and oral evidence Gypsy Rose was not wearing a muzzle at the time of the incident. Mr Singh stated when he arrived at Ms Tsalamangos' home, he observed she was walking Gypsy Rose without a muzzle or regulated collar.

[139] The relevance of a dog acting in response to being attacked, provoked or teased and causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, or death was considered by the Appeal Tribunal in Imbrogno & Anor v Brisbane City Council[14] ('Imbrogno'). There, two dogs owned by the applicants attacked a third dog. The third dog suffered grievous bodily harm. Subsequently, the respondent declared the two dogs to be declared dangerous dogs.

[140] The appellants applied to the Tribunal for a review of the decision. The decision was confirmed. They then applied to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to appeal against the decision at first instance.

[141] The Appeal Tribunal, after setting out the legislative framework, concluded there was sufficient evidence before the Tribunal at first instance to conclude, as it did, the incident constituted a serious attack causing grievous bodily harm and the two dogs had seriously attacked the third dog.

[142] The Appeal Tribunal referred to the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Lee v Brisbane City Council (No 2).[15] There, the Appeal Tribunal, at [30], observed:

(Section 89) is concerned with circumstances where a relevant declaration may, not must, be made. A dangerous dog declaration may be made where the dog under consideration has "seriously attacked or acted in a way that caused fear to a person or another animal". There is no provision in the Act similar to section 196 which is relevant to section 89. That is not to say that in the exercise of the discretion whether a declaration should be made with regard to a dog which has attacked another dog in a way causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or even death, the fact that the dog was acting in response to being attacked, provoked or teased is irrelevant. All the circumstances need to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion.[16]

(Emphasis added) (Citation omitted)

... The learned member observed that there was no discretion afforded to the Tribunal to reach a different decision (other than to make the regulated dog declaration) if the attack results in grievous bodily harm. As was held in Lee v Brisbane City Council (No 2) all of the relevant circumstances need to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion. The discretion involves the decision maker, after considering all of the relevant circumstances including submissions and evidence by the dog owner, determining whether a dog has seriously attacked a person or another animal. Having found that Thor and Zeus had seriously attacked Miffy within the meaning of s 89 of the AM Act, s 94(2) required the learned member to confirm the decision to declare Thor and Zeus to be dangerous dogs. The learned member did not err in so doing. The conclusion reached by the learned member has not been shown by the applicants to be illogical or irrational or attended by legal unreasonableness. There is an evident, transparent and intelligible justification for the decision, which falls within the area of decisional freedom of the decision-maker. The discretion exercised by the learned member did not miscarry ...[17]

(Citations omitted)

[144] Gypsy Rose, at the time of the second incident, was a regulated dog. The Council was not precluded from making a destruction order for Gypsy Rose if she seriously attacked Alba. Hence, the Tribunal must be satisfied, to the requisite standard and having regard to the whole of the evidence, Gypsy Rose attacked Alba in a way that maimed or wounded Alba. If satisfied, it must confirm the internal review decision.

[145] Dr Hseih swears she treated Alba on 26 March 2025. The dog's wounds are set out in paragraph [63] of these reasons for decision

[146] Several photographs are exhibited to the affidavit. They show the condition of the dog after fur was removed and during treatment. The puncture wounds and pocketing are readily apparent.

[147] When giving oral evidence and in response to a question put to her by Ms Tsalamangos, Dr Hseih described the deep pocketing as tunnelling underneath the fat layer. Alba was in distress. She gave her a pain relief injection.

[148] The attack on Alba, Dr Hseih said, was a serious attack. One puncture wound was at the top of the incision. The incision joined two pocket wounds together. The drain was to remove debris.

[149] Ms Tsalamangos did not inspect the injuries. She submits, both in writing and in evidence, the photographs exhibited to Dr Hseih's affidavit show, '... scratches and what looks like the entry and exit point of the drainage tube ...' She later added '... [t]hese photos do not indicate the full jaw bite patterns ...'

[150] Alba, Ms Tsalamangos submits, did not suffer significant wounds as a result of the incident, only 'graze' marks. The dog did not require emergency surgery.

[151] Dr Hseih swears the attack on Alba caused grievous bodily harm as defined in section 1 of part 1 of chapter 1 of the Criminal Code.[18] The definition is for a serious attack on a person, not an animal. The definition in relation to an animal is the attack on the animal causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the animal.

1. 'Maims' is not defined in the AM Act. Giving the word its ordinary meaning, it includes the permanent impairment or loss of function as a consequence of an injury. Likewise, 'wounds' is not defined in the Act. It has been defined at common law to require the breaking of the skin.[19]

[153] I am satisfied, having regard to the whole of the evidence, Alba was wounded. She was seriously attacked by Gypsy Rose and, but for the matter referred to below, the internal review decision would be confirmed.

[154] In cross-examination by Mr Andronicus, Ms Tsalamangos was asked who owned Gypsy Rose at the time of the first incident. She responded:

I didn't own Gypsy Rose. She's not my registered owner at the time.

[155] Later, Ms Tsalamangos was asked who owned Gypsy Rose at the time of the second incident. She responded:

... she was registered to me and Zach. We were part owners of her.

[156] Following the hearing, and considering the evidence given by Ms Tsalamangos, the Tribunal gave directions to the parties in the following terms:

1. Brisbane City Council file in the Tribunal two copies and give to Tanya Tsalamangos by email one copy of an affidavit deposing to the registered owner of the dog Gypsy Rose microchip number 9503010005787377 and tag number 704274 under the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) and such other information as may be available on each of the following dates:

(a) 8 November 2023 (the date of the first incident);

(b) 24 January 2024 (the date of the dangerous dog declaration);

(c) 17 February 2024 (the date of the review decision for the dangerous dog declaration);

(d) 26 March 2025 (the date of the second incident);

(e) 11 April 2025 (the date of the destruction order); and

(f) 24 April 2025(the date of the review decision for the destruction order),

together with any submissions in support of the affidavit, by:

4:00pm on 19 January 2026

1. Tanya Tsalamangos file in the Tribunal two copies and give to Brisbane City Council by email one copy of any submissions in reply to the affidavit and submissions by Brisbane City Council, by:

4:00pm on 2 February 2026

[157] The Council filed an affidavit of David Barham and supplementary submissions on 12 January 2026. Gypsy Rose was a regulated dog and section 127 of the AM Act did not authorise the destruction of the dog. The dog, as I have found, seriously attacked an animal.

[158] The affidavit of Mr Barham shows that on the date of service of the destruction order, the owners of Gypsy Rose were Ms Tsalamangos and her son, Zachariah Herbert. The destruction order was served on Ms Tsalamangos, but not on Mr Herbert.

[159] The Council submits the destruction order was served on a registered owner of Gypsy Rose, Ms Tsalamangos, and that is enough for the proceeding to continue. It relies on the decision of the Appeal Tribunal in Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland[20].

[160] Alternatively, it is submitted by the Council, the correct and preferable decision is to confirm the internal review decision.

[161] Ms Tsalamangos filed in the Tribunal and gave to the Council submissions in reply to the affidavit and supplementary submissions. The submissions confirm that at the time of service of the destruction order, the registered owners of Gypsy Rose were Ms Tsalamangos and Mr Herbert.

[162] The requirements for service of a destruction order are found in section 127AA(4) of the AM Act. It provides:

(a) be served on:

(i) the registered owner of the dog; or

(ii) if there is no registered owner of the dog - any person who is an owner of, or a responsible person for, the dog; and

(b) include or be accompanied by an information notice about the decision to make the destruction order.

[163] Owner is defined in section 9 of the Act. Subsection (1) provides:

(1) Each person as follows is an owner of a cat or dog:

(a) a person who is:

(i) the registered owner of the dog; or

(ii) if a local government makes a local law requiring cats to be registered - identified as the owner of the cat under the local law;

(b) a person who owns the cat or dog, in the sense of it being the person's personal property;

(c) a person who usually keeps the cat or dog, including through an agent, employee or anyone else;

(d) if a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) is a child - a parent or guardian section 127AA(4) of the a in act, may be contrasted with the section 90(1e) providing for giving a proposed declaration notice.

[164] There is no evidence Gypsy Rose fell within one of the other categories in section 9(1) of the AM Act.

[165] Section 127AA(4) of the Act may be contrasted with section 90(1) providing for giving a proposed declaration notice. The latter subsection provides:

(1) If a local government proposes to make a regulated dog declaration it must give any owner of the dog a notice (a proposed declaration notice) stating:

(a) the following details for the dog:

(i) breed;

(ii) colour;

(iii) sex;

(iv) any other noticeable distinguishing features or marks; and

(b) the local government proposes to declare the dog to be a regulated dog; and

(c) the type of regulated dog declaration proposed to be made; and

(d) the reasons for the proposed declaration; and

(e) an owner of the dog may make, within a stated period, written representations to show why the proposed declaration should not be made.

[166] The subsection provides for giving a proposed declaration notice to any owner. Section 127AA(4) provides that the destruction order must be served on the registered owner of the dog, not any registered owner.

[167] The provisions of section 90 of AM Act were considered by the Appeal Tribunal in Central Queensland Animal Society Inc. v Rockhampton Regional Council[21]. The applicant submitted it was not provided with a proposed declaration notice under section 90(1) of the AM Act.

[168] At paragraph [27], the Appeal Tribunal said:

Section 90 of the Act provides that notice of the proposed declaration must be given to 'any' owner, no doubt on the basis that there might be multiple 'owners', some of whom might be unknown to the respondent. Accordingly, even if the applicant was an 'owner' at all relevant times, the respondent complied with s 90 of the Act by giving the notice to an owner.

[169] Section 127AA(4) of the AM Act does not provide for service of the destruction order on any owner, it must be served on the owner. In an Act, words in the singular include the plural.[22] Here, the registered owner, by virtue of section 9(1) of the Act, was Ms Tsalamangos and Mr Herbert. Ms Tsalamangos was served with the prohibition notice. Mr Herbert, however, was not.

[170] The distinction between section 90(1) and section 127AA(4) of the Act is understandable. The destruction of a dog, for obvious reasons, is a 'last resort'.[23] The giving of a proposed declaration notice under section 90(1) to any registered owner is sufficient. The legislation, however, requires service of the prohibition notice on all registered owners.

[171] The Council submits that if the Tribunal finds it has not complied with the legislation, it nevertheless should confirm the internal review decision. Doing so necessarily involves ignoring a mandatory requirement of the legislation for making a destruction order and deprives a registered owner of rights under the AM Act and the QCAT Act.

[172] I am satisfied the facts support a finding the destruction order should be confirmed but for the requirements of section 127AA(4) of the AM Act. I am not satisfied the Council complied with the requirements.

[173] It follows the internal review decision must be set aside.

[174] The decision of the Tribunal is that the internal review decision be set aside and that Gypsy Rose be returned to Ms Tsalamangos and Mr Herbert.

[175] Gypsy Rose remains a dangerous dog. Ms Tsalamangos and Mr Herbert must comply with the conditions for regulated dogs in schedule 1 to the AM Act.

[176] Ms Tsalamangos' failure to properly restrain and muzzle the dog has put the dog at risk of being destroyed. Any ongoing failure to comply with the requirements of the legislation is likely to result in further action.

[2] [2019] QCAT 80.

[3] [2017] QCATA 121.

[14] [2017] QCATA 148.

[15] [2012] QCATA 64.

[18] Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) sch 1.

1. [19]R v Shepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351 at [31]; Vallance v The Queen [1961] HCA 42; (1961) 108 CLR 56 at 77; R v Hatch [2006] NSWCCA 330 at [16]; R v Devine [1982] TASRp 16; (1982) 8 A Crim R 45 at 47, 52, 56.

[20] [2010] QCATA 58 at [9].

[21] [2025] QCATA 35.

[22] Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 32C.

[23] Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97 at [18].