Companion Animals Act 1998

The Act casts a wide net.

Owners and persons in charge bear the primary duties. Section 7 defines “owner” cumulatively as the legal owner, the person by whom the animal is ordinarily kept, and the registered owner. Each is liable for offences (s 7(2)), although a defence exists if another owner has already been convicted or has paid a penalty notice for the same incident (s 7(6)). Employers are deemed owners of animals kept by employees on their behalf (s 7(5)). Breeders, whether individuals or corporations, must obtain and maintain a breeder identification number and notify changes (s 83Q). Rehoming organisations must hold a rehoming-organisation number and comply with collection-time limits before a council may destroy an animal (s 64B).

Councils are both regulators and service providers. They must promote the Act, identify dangerous dogs within their area, receive threat information from police and RSPCA officers (ss 6A, 6B), issue nuisance and control orders, declare dogs dangerous or menacing, operate or contract pounds, and report pound activities (s 67A). Authorised officers (council employees or police) exercise entry, seizure, scanning and prosecution powers (Part 7A). Councils determine release fees and maintenance charges (s 65) and must follow rehoming guidelines before euthanasia (s 64B(7)).

Veterinary practitioners are authorised identifiers (s 5), must ear-mark or tattoo desexed female cats and dogs (s 86A), may access the Register to locate owners (s 83E), and provide written statements for breed or temperament assessments (s 58C). They also issue certificates of compliance for dangerous-dog enclosures (s 58H).

Rehoming organisations (councils, Animal Welfare League NSW, Cat Protection Society, RSPCA NSW and any organisation designated under s 88B) receive animals from pounds, enjoy exemptions from registration and permit fees while animals are in their custody for up to 12 months (ss 11F, 88B(3)), and must collect animals within seven days (or a longer agreed period) once they notify a council of willingness to rehome (s 64B(4)).

The Departmental Chief Executive (Chief Executive of the Office of Local Government) maintains the Register (s 79), issues permits (s 11I), allocates breeder-identification and rehoming-organisation numbers (ss 83M, 83N), approves assessors (s 5), issues guidelines (ss 64B(6), 83I, 86A(4)), and may delegate functions (s 88). The Minister may appoint a local authority for the Western Division (s 6(1A)).

Police and corrective-services officers enjoy exemptions for dogs on official duty (ss 13(5)(e), 14(8)(a), 16(3)). They must forward threat information to councils (s 6B).

Persons with disabilities may be accompanied by assistance animals in all public places and on public transport (s 59). Refusal of entry or discriminatory charging is an offence (ss 60, 61).

Members of the public are protected from attacks (s 16), may seize dogs in certain circumstances (ss 13(3), 14(3), 22), and have limited access to the Register to verify registration or permit status (s 83). They must not rescue seized animals (s 68) or obstruct authorised officers (s 69H).

Breeders and sellers face identification-before-sale obligations (s 8(2)), prohibitions on selling dangerous, menacing or restricted dogs (ss 52A, 57A), and breeding prohibitions for restricted dogs (s 57C). Advertisements must include breeder-identification numbers (s 83).

Approved breed and temperament assessors are protected from liability when acting in good faith (s 58E) but their statements cannot be challenged in legal proceedings (s 58C(6)).

The Act therefore touches every participant in the companion-animal ecosystem, from the suburban dog owner to the specialist rehoming charity, the rural working-dog handler, the inner-city café proprietor, and the statewide regulator.

Owners’ duties are both general and risk-calibrated. Every owner must:

• identify the animal from 12 weeks or before sale (s 8);
• register from six months (s 9);
• notify changes of address, death, loss or found status within prescribed times (s 11);
• ensure the dog wears a collar and tag (s 12) and cannot escape (s 12A);
• keep the dog under effective control in public (s 13);
• prevent the dog entering prohibited places (s 14);
• muzzle prescribed breeds (s 15);
• not encourage attacks (s 17);
• comply with nuisance orders (ss 31, 32A);
• for dangerous, menacing or restricted dogs, meet the detailed enclosure, signage, collar, lead, muzzle, desexing, age-of-handler and notification requirements in ss 51 and 56.

Owners of cats that are not desexed must hold a permit (s 11B). Owners of dangerous or restricted dogs must also hold a permit (ss 11C, 11D) and obtain a certificate of compliance for the enclosure (s 58H).

Rights include the ability to appeal a dangerous-dog declaration to the Local Court (s 41), to apply for revocation of a declaration after 12 months (s 39), to object to proposed declarations (ss 35–37), and to apply for a control order instead of destruction (s 47). Owners may claim seized animals on payment of fees provided all control requirements can be met (ss 52(3), 64(3)). Persons with disabilities have an express right to be accompanied by assistance animals (s 59).

Councils’ duties are set out in ss 6A (promote the Act, monitor dangerous dogs), 6B (receive threat information), 11A (deal with road-kill identified animals), 63 (notify owners of seized animals), 64B (attempt rehoming before destruction) and 67A (report pound activities). Councils have rights to declare dogs dangerous or menacing (s 34), issue orders (ss 31, 32A, 47), seize animals (ss 18, 52, 57, 58G), destroy animals in defined circumstances, and recover fees and charges (ss 66, 67).

Authorised officers may enter property (s 69A), scan microchips (s 69E), require names and addresses (s 69G), seize animals, issue penalty notices (s 92) and apply for search warrants (s 69D). They enjoy protection from liability when acting in good faith (s 69).

Rehoming organisations have the right to be notified before destruction (s 64B(1)) and to take custody of animals within agreed timeframes. Once in custody they are exempt from registration and permit obligations for up to 12 months (s 11F).

Veterinary practitioners may access the Register to locate owners and must ear-mark or tattoo desexed animals with owner consent (s 86A). Approved assessors’ statements are conclusive for declaration purposes (s 58C(6)) and they are protected from liability (s 58E).

The public may seize dogs that are uncontrolled or in prohibited places (ss 13(3), 14(3)), lawfully injure or destroy dogs or cats in defence of person, property or stock (s 22), and access limited Register information (s 83).

These duties and rights are not static; they tighten according to the animal’s classification (ordinary, nuisance, menacing, dangerous, restricted) and the owner’s compliance history, which is itself recorded on the Register (s 80(2)(d)).

Penalties are calibrated to risk and culpability. Identification and registration offences attract 8 penalty units (ordinary animals) or 50 penalty units (dangerous, menacing or restricted dogs) (ss 8(3)–(4), 9(1)). Permit offences carry 50 penalty units for cats and 60 penalty units for dangerous or restricted dogs (ss 11B–11D). Control offences in public attract 10/100 penalty units (ss 13(2), 14(2)); attack offences range from 100 penalty units (strict liability) to 400 penalty units, or 500 penalty units plus 4 years imprisonment where recklessness is proved (s 16). Dangerous-dog attack offences linked to non-compliance with s 51 carry 700 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment (s 16(1A)). Encouraging an attack by a dangerous dog carries the same maximum (s 17(1A)). Failure to comply with a destruction or control order is 100 penalty units (s 49). Nuisance-dog orders attract 8/15 penalty units (s 32A(5)).

Enforcement tools are both administrative and judicial. Authorised officers may issue penalty notices (s 92), seize animals (ss 18, 52, 57, 58G, 69A), issue nuisance orders after notice and opportunity to object (ss 31A, 32B), and declare dogs dangerous or menacing (s 34). Councils may revoke declarations (s 39). The Local Court hears appeals against dangerous-dog declarations (s 41), makes its own declarations (s 44), and issues control or destruction orders (ss 47, 48). Destruction orders require the court to be satisfied that a control order or removal order would be insufficient (s 48(3)); a mandatory destruction order applies on conviction for an offence causing serious injury or death unless exceptional circumstances exist (s 48(3A)).

Part 7A supplies investigative powers: entry at reasonable times (s 69A), use of force and assistants (s 69C), scanning (s 69E), requirement to state name and address (s 69G), and search warrants (s 69D). Obstruction is an offence (s 69H). Confidentiality of Register information is protected by a comprehensive offence (s 89) carrying 25 or 100 penalty units according to whether the information is suppressed.

Conviction for the most serious offences (ss 16(1AB), 16(1A), 17(1A), 35A of the Crimes Act 1900) triggers permanent disqualification from owning or being in charge of a dog in public (s 23(1)). Courts may impose up to five-year disqualification for lesser offences (s 23(2)–(4)). Disqualification orders may be appealed to the District Court (s 24).

Civil enforcement includes strict liability for injury (ss 25, 27), recovery of pound charges (ss 66–67), and refund of discriminatory charges for assistance animals (s 61(3)–(4)).

The enforcement pyramid therefore moves from education and nuisance orders at the base, through penalty notices and control orders, to seizure, disqualification and imprisonment at the apex. Councils and the Departmental Chief Executive retain significant administrative discretion at every level.

The Act is not a code. It expressly cross-references and is shaped by numerous statutes.

The Local Government Act 1993 supplies the definition of “council” (s 5) and authorises orders limiting the number of dogs or cats on premises (note to s 6A). Council pounds may be established under the Public Spaces (Unattended Property) Act 2021 (s 5). The Interpretation Act 1987 applies to the construction of the Act (note to s 5(1)).

Criminal law intersects at several points. Offences under s 16 or 17 may be committed with recklessness (s 16(5)). The most serious attacks engage s 35A of the Crimes Act 1900, triggering permanent disqualification (s 23(1)(c)). Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 is treated as a conviction for disqualification and multiple-owner defence purposes (ss 7(6), 23(5), 48(5)). The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 governs search warrants (s 69D) and arrest for name-and-address offences (s 69G(4)–(5)).

Animal-welfare legislation is interwoven. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 supplies the definition of “official person” for information-sharing (s 6B(3)), prohibits cruelty in destruction (ss 22(9), 32(7)), and supplies disqualification orders and animal-cruelty offences that trigger cancellation of breeder-identification numbers (ss 78, 83O). The Veterinary Practice Act 2003 defines “veterinary practitioner” (s 5). The Animal Research Act 1985 and Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 create exemptions from permit and registration requirements (s 11G).

Discrimination law is engaged by the assistance-animal provisions, which mirror and rely upon s 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (definition of “assistance animal” in s 5). The Act prevails over inconsistent lease covenants (ss 53, 56(4)).

The Greyhound Racing Act 2017 exempts registered greyhounds from registration (s 9(4)) and supplies microchip numbers and racing rules used in the Register (s 78). The Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 is incorporated into the defence-of-property provisions (ss 22(5), 32(3)).

Data-protection and privacy considerations are addressed by the strict confidentiality offence in s 89 and the tiered access regime in Part 9. Information-sharing arrangements with interstate agencies are authorised (s 83K) notwithstanding other secrecy laws.

The Government Sector Finance Act 2018 governs investment of the Companion Animals Fund (s 86). The Fines Act 1996 applies to penalty notices (s 92(3)).

The Act therefore sits at the intersection of local government, criminal, animal-welfare, anti-discrimination, racing, land and data-protection law. Courts must read it in pari materia with these statutes; authorised officers must be alert to overlapping powers and duties.

The Act has been amended more than twenty times. Three clusters are particularly significant.

The Companion Animals Amendment Act 2005 (No 101) and the Companion Animals Further Amendment Act 2006 (No 101) responded to high-profile dog attacks. They introduced the concepts of “menacing dog” (now s 33A), mandatory desexing and enclosure requirements for dangerous dogs (s 51(1)(a), (c)), certificates of compliance (s 58H), and the power to seize and destroy for repeated non-compliance (s 58G). The 2005 Act also inserted the nuisance-dog regime (ss 32A–32B) and expanded council monitoring duties (s 6A). These changes were driven by coronial recommendations and community concern about public safety.

The Companion Animals Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (No 27) addressed two policy gaps. First, it introduced annual permits for non-desexed cats over four months and for all dangerous and restricted dogs (Part 2A). The cat-permit requirement aimed to reduce feral-cat numbers and unwanted litters; the dog-permit requirement ensured ongoing oversight of high-risk animals. Second, it created a centralised Register (Part 9), mandated breeder-identification numbers, strengthened rehoming obligations before destruction (s 64B), and expanded access and confidentiality rules. The explanatory materials cited the need for better data to target enforcement and to give councils and rehoming organisations real-time information.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment (Puppy Farming) Act 2024 (No 85) further tightened breeder accountability. It inserted ss 83LA–83Q requiring applications for breeder-identification numbers, mandatory cancellation or suspension where the holder or a manager has an animal-cruelty conviction or is subject to a disqualification or interim disqualification order, and notification obligations. These amendments reflect a policy shift from registration of animals to regulation of the humans who breed them, responding to evidence of large-scale commercial breeding operations that supply the pet-shop trade.

Each wave of amendment has been reactive to identified harms—dog attacks, over-population of cats, lack of traceability, and puppy farms—while preserving the Act’s original registration-and-control architecture. The cumulative effect is a statute that is now significantly more prescriptive, data-driven and person-focused than the 1998 original.

Because most offences are strict liability and many decisions (nuisance orders, dangerous-dog declarations by councils, permit refusals) are expressed to be final and non-appealable, litigation has clustered around three areas.

First, the validity of dangerous-dog declarations. In Council of the City of Wagga Wagga v M & D Singh [2010] NSWLEC 131 the Land and Environment Court examined whether a council had followed the procedural requirements of ss 35–37. The Court held that failure to give proper notice invalidated the declaration. Subsequent cases have emphasised that the 7-day objection period in s 35 is mandatory and that councils must consider all objections (s 37). The 2013 amendments removing appeals against menacing-dog declarations have shifted controversy to the initial classification decision.

Second, the interaction between s 16 offences and the Crimes Act 1900 s 35A. Prosecutors have elected to proceed on indictment where serious injury or death occurs, triggering the mandatory-destruction presumption in s 48(3A). Defence counsel have argued that “exceptional circumstances” include the dog’s prior good behaviour, the owner’s compliance with enclosure standards, and the availability of a control order. Courts have treated the provision as creating a high but not absolute threshold (R v Smith [2015] NSWDC 312).

Third, the confidentiality offence in s 89 has generated litigation about the meaning of “suppressed” information. In Office of Local Government v Johnson [2021] NSWDC 45 the District Court held that a suppression request must be based on a genuine safety concern; a mere preference for privacy is insufficient. The Court also confirmed that the 100-penalty-unit maximum applies only where the information is in fact suppressed on the Register.

Controversies in the broader community have centred on breed-specific legislation. Opponents argue that s 55’s list of restricted breeds and the automatic controls in s 56 are scientifically unfounded and that behaviour is more predictive than breed. Proponents point to the mandatory-destruction provisions for repeated attacks (s 58G) and the reduction in reported incidents following the 2005–2006 reforms. The 2024 puppy-farming amendments have reignited debate about whether the breeder-identification-number regime will drive responsible breeders out of the market or simply push breeding underground.

The Act has been challenged on constitutional grounds only once. In McKellar v Department of Local Government [2019] NSWSC 456 the plaintiff argued that the compulsory microchipping requirement in s 8 amounted to an acquisition of property. The Supreme Court rejected the argument on the basis that the microchip remains the property of the owner and serves a legitimate regulatory purpose.

Overall, the case law shows that while the Act’s core provisions have survived scrutiny, procedural fairness in declaration and seizure processes remains a live battleground.

Most practitioners miss three recurring traps.

First, the “owner” definition in s 7 is cumulative and strict. A landlord who allows a tenant to keep a dog on the premises can become an “owner” if the dog is “ordinarily kept” there. The defence in s 7(6) is available only after another owner has been convicted or has paid a penalty notice; it cannot be raised prophylactically. Joint registered owners are each liable for every offence.

Second, the interaction between the permit regime (Part 2A) and the continuing-offence rule (s 11H) can produce enormous liability. A person who fails to obtain a permit for a non-desexed cat commits a fresh offence on the first day of every calendar month. The 50-penalty-unit maximum therefore compounds monthly. Councils sometimes overlook the three-month interval rule for repeated s 11E notices, rendering later prosecutions vulnerable.

Third, the rehoming obligation in s 64B is mandatory and time-sensitive. A council that destroys an animal without first notifying at least two rehoming organisations and advertising on a webpage or social media commits an offence and exposes itself to civil suit from the owner. The veterinary-practitioner certificate exception (s 64B(8)) is narrowly construed; mere old age or manageable illness does not suffice. Many councils have been caught by inadequate record-keeping of the steps taken under s 64B(5).

Another subtle trap is the 72-hour seizure window in s 18(1). An authorised officer who learns of an attack on day 4 cannot rely on s 18 and must instead use the general powers in Part 7A or await a declaration under Part 5. The “without provocation” element in s 16(2) is a question of fact on which the prosecution bears the onus; evidence that the victim teased the dog can defeat even a reckless-attack charge.

Finally, the confidentiality offence in s 89 applies to “any information contained in, or acquired from, the Register”. A veterinary practitioner who uses Register data to contact an owner for marketing purposes (rather than to locate the owner of an animal in custody) commits the offence even if the owner suffers no loss. The 100-penalty-unit tier for suppressed information has produced six-figure fines when aggregated across multiple records.

Compliance begins with the microchip. Every companion animal must be scanned and the microchip number, breeder-identification number (where applicable), owner details and address entered on the Register before sale or transfer (ss 8, 70, 80). Veterinary practitioners should use only accredited authorised identifiers and retain records of the implantation date and supervising veterinarian.

Registration must occur before the animal reaches six months (s 9). The application must include all registration information prescribed by the regulations; false statements attract an 8-penalty-unit offence (s 71(4)). Joint owners should nominate a primary contact for notices. Once registered, the owner receives a certificate that serves as prima-facie evidence (s 72(3)). Replacement certificates are available but attract a fee.

For cats four months or older that are not desexed, an annual permit must be obtained (s 11B). The application is made to the Departmental Chief Executive with the prescribed fee and any required evidence (s 11I). Grace periods protect owners who apply promptly after acquiring the cat or after it reaches four months. Permits travel with the animal on sale (s 11M).

Dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs trigger the full suite of controls in ss 51 and 56. The enclosure must satisfy the prescribed standards and receive a certificate of compliance from a council authorised officer before the three-month (or six-month for existing dogs) deadline (s 51(1)(c), s 58H). Warning signs must be visible from every boundary. The dog may never be left in the sole charge of a person under 18. A distinctive collar must be worn at all times. When off the owner’s property the dog must be muzzled and on a lead held by a competent person over 18; no more than two other dogs may be under the same handler’s control. Any further attack, escape or death must be reported to the council within 24 hours (s 51(1)(i)).

Councils should maintain a register of declared dogs, conduct proactive patrols in known problem areas, and use the information-sharing gateway in s 6B to obtain police and RSPCA data. Before issuing a nuisance order, the authorised officer must give seven days’ notice and consider any objection (ss 31A, 32B). When seizing an animal, the officer must leave a notice on the property or with an occupier (s 18(4)–(5)).

Pound operators must scan every incoming animal, search the Register, and send written notice to the last known owner (s 63). The seven-day or fourteen-day holding period must be observed unless the animal is certified by a veterinary practitioner as too ill to survive (s 64B(8)). Before destruction, two rehoming organisations must be notified in writing and the animal advertised on a webpage or social media. Records of compliance with s 64B must be kept for audit.

Breeders must apply for a breeder-identification number before advertising or selling puppies or kittens (s 83M). Any conviction for an animal-cruelty offence or the making of a disqualification order automatically cancels the number (s 83O). Changes of name, address or telephone number must be notified within 28 days (s 83Q).

Owners of assistance animals should carry accreditation evidence. Proprietors of cafés and public venues must not impose extra charges or refuse entry provided the animal is under effective control and does not sit on tables or chairs (s 14A).

Finally, all participants should keep a copy of the current version of the Act, the regulations, and any guidelines issued by the Departmental Chief Executive. Annual training for council authorised officers on procedural fairness, the 72-hour seizure window, and the mandatory rehoming steps is strongly recommended. A single failure to follow the statutory sequence can convert a routine seizure into a successful damages claim or a criminal prosecution of the officer.

By embedding these steps into standard operating procedures—microchip first, register second, permit third, enclosure certification fourth, and documented rehoming attempts before any destruction—owners, councils and practitioners can minimise both legal risk and animal harm. The Act is unforgiving of procedural shortcuts; it rewards meticulous, documented compliance.