Results
| Title | Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Companion Animals - Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) | Companion Animals Act 1998 |
The Companion Animals Act, came into effect in September 1998. The Act is designed to benefit pets, their owners and the wider community. Part two of the Act provides for the permanent identification and lifetime registration system which came into effect on 1 July 1999. This was designed to greatly assists authorities in returning lost and injured animals to their owners. It provides NSW councils with a more effective means of keeping track of dogs and cats for the benefit of the wider community. The Act also outlines the requirements when a person is the owner of a ‘controlled dog’ or dangerous breed as well as giving the courts and local councils the ability under legislation to declare a dog ‘dangerous’. The Act also covers nuisance dogs and situations where a dog attack has occurred and the civil liability of dog owners. |
Statute |
| Robertson v Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries | [2010] QCA 147 |
An Inspector of the RSPCA entered premises occupied by the respondent and seized 104 dogs under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 which were then forfeited to the state. These actions were confirmed when the respondent sought an administrative review of the decisions and leave to appeal was refused. The respondent sought to raise numerous grounds of appeal against the prior refusal of leave to appeal, however, the appeal was struck out. |
Case |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia) | Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 |
The Act covers the protection of fauna, the taking of protected species, licence requirements and possible opportunities, the authority of wildlife officers, crown lands. The Department of Environment and Conservation is the primary agency responsible for conserving this biodiversity. This Act provides for the conservation and protection of wildlife. |
Statute |
| Takhar v Animal Liberation SA Inc | [2000] SASC 400 |
An ex parte injunction was granted against the applicants preventing distribution or broadcasting of video footage obtained while on the respondent's property. The applicants claimed they were not on the land for an unlawful purpose and that they were there to obtain evidence of breaches of the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act 1985 (SA). The injunction restraining distribution or broadcasting of the footage, which was applicable to the applicants only, was removed on the balance of convenience as the media outlets were at liberty to broadcast. |
Case |
| AU - Farming - Stock Act 1915 (QLD) | Stock Act 1915 |
The Stock Act governs the treatment and welfare of stock or farm animals in Queensland. The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect industry in the event of a disease outbreak.
|
Statute |
| Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk (No 2) | [2005] FCA 1307 |
The respondents, including PETA, engaged in a campaign to boycott the Australian wool industry on the bases of the cruelty incurred by the practice of mulesing and because of its link to the live export industry. The applicants, including Australian Wool Innovation who represented the Australian wool industry, sought to bring an action against the respondents for hindering trade under the Trade Practices Act (Cth) s 45DB and conspiring to injure the applicants by unlawful means. The respondents were successful in having these claims struck out. |
Case |
| City of Armidale v Kiraly | [2009] WASC 199 |
The respondent, an owner of a brindle boxer dog, was charged with the dog attacking a person and for having the dog in a public place without a leash. The dog had escaped from the respondent's house and allegedly ran to and lunged at a lady delivering pamphlets. On appeal, the question of whether the dog's behaviour constituted an 'attack' for the purposes of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) s 33D(1) was a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. |
Case |
| Fleet v District Court of New South Wales | [1999] NSWCA 363 |
The appellant's dog was removed by police officers and later euthanised. The dog was emaciated and suffering from numerous ailments. The appellant was charged and convicted with an animal cruelty offence and failure to state his name and address when asked. On appeal, it was found that the court had failed to address the elements of the animal cruelty offence and that the charge of failing to state name and address could not stand. |
Case |
| AU - Livestock - Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 | Act No. 206 of 1997 |
The purpose of this Act is to control meat and live-stock exports both within and outside Australia. 'Live-stock' includes cattle, calves, sheep, lambs and goats, however this definition is not exhaustive and may include other animals if prescribed. The Act covers export licences, quotas and enforcement. It also outlines the role of industry bodies and policies. |
Statute |
| Anderson v Ah Kit | [2004] WASC 194 |
In proceedings for defamation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published information giving rise to the imputations that the plaintiff left animals to starve and that the Northern Territory government had to intervene to feed those animals. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defences of Polly Peck and fair comment. The Court ruled that the Polly Peck defense was sufficiently justified to survive the plaintiff's strike out application. It was held, however, that although animal welfare generally was a matter of public interest, the welfare of some animals held on private property was not, and could not be made by extensive media coverage, a matter of public interest. |
Case |