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 |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) | Wildlife Act 1975 |
The purposes of this Act are to establish procedures in order to promote: the protection and conservation of wildlife; the prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct; the sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and to prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife |
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 |
| 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 - 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. |
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 - 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 |