|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Oshannessy v Heagney|| NSWSC 482||
The case focuses primarily on the procedural requirements for stating a case. However, there is also discussion concerning what are the appropriate steps that a motor vehicle driver, who has hit and injured an animal with their vehicle, must take. In this case, the trial judge found that a refusal to stop and inspect the animal did not constitute a failure to take reasonable steps to alleviate that animal's pain.
|AU - Exotic diseases in Animals Act 1981 (QLD)||Exotic diseases in Animals Act 1981||
An Act to provide for the control, eradication and prevention of exotic diseases in animals, the compensation of owners for loss or destruction of animals and property during outbreaks of exotic diseases, the establishment of an exotic diseases expenses and compensation fund and for related purposes.
|Australia - Anti Cruelty - POCTAA General Regulations 1996||POCTAA Regs cl||Agency Citation||This Regulation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) 1979. The regulations may prescribe guidelines relating to the welfare of species of farm or companion animals. Compliance or failure to comply with guidelines prescribed by regulation under this section is admissible as evidence in proceedings relating to compliance or failure to comply with POCTAA or the regulations.||Administrative|
|Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service|| NSWSC 457||
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting.
|RSPCA v O'Loughlan|| SASC 113||
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
|Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser||(1991) 1 VR 51||(1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-027||
Animal Liberation were injuncted from publishing words claiming animal cruelty in a circus or demonstrating against that circus. They were also found guilty of nuisance resulting from their demonstration outside that circus. On appeal, the injunctions were overturned although the finding of nuisance was upheld.
|AU - Live export - Export Control Act 1982||Act No. 47 of 1982 as amended||The purpose of this Act is to control the export of certain goods. In the Act, 'eligible live animals' are defined as 'prescribed goods consisting of live animals'. The Act sets out both the export and entry requirements for prescribed goods and the accreditation scheme concerning veterinarians. It also outlines the various offences that both veterinarians and exporters may be charged with, as well as details the general enforcement powers of authorised officers.||Statute|
|Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc.||860 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (W.D. Wash. 2012) rev'd, 708 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) and rev'd, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013)||The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission.||Case|
|Whaling in the Antarctic||Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan), 2010 Judgment.||In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end.||Case|
|Turner v Cole|| TASSC 72||
RSPCA officers found a horse belonging to the applicant on the applicant's property and, after preparing the horse for transport, had to euthanise the animal when it collapsed. The applicant was convicted of failing to feed a horse which led to its serious disablement and eventual euthanisation. The applicant was unsuccessful on all issues on appeal and was liable for a fine of $4000 and prevention from owning 20 or more horses for five years.