New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Dog control act 1996 s57

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2020

MOKA v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 2417

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2417
Court

High Court

The Court applied the Hill two-step approach, confined the inquiry to the immediate circumstances of the 2018 stock attack, found no exceptional circumstances (owner failed to maintain control; no provocation; straightforward stock attack), held post-offence conduct and training cannot negate the mandatory destruction requirement, and therefore upheld the destruction order; leave to appeal out of time was granted.
17 Nov 2017

WALKER v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZCA 526

Citation

[2017] NZCA 526
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave because the applicant's statutory interpretation argument lacked merit: the extended definition of "owner" imports control and does not exclude an owner from being the person attacked under s 57(1)(a), the Act supports strict liability and mandatory destruction absent exceptional circumstances, and the s 237 high threshold was not met as there was no matter of general/public importance nor any real or likely miscarriage of justice.