header-logo header-logo

13 December 2013
Issue: 7588 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Dangerous dogs

Brough v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2013] All ER (D) 02 (Dec)

In October 2011, the appellant’s pit-bull type dog, under s 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (s 1 dog), was found attached to a railing without a muzzle. It was acting aggressively, barking and attempting to bite. It subsequently acted aggressively when a police officer came to seize it. The respondent local authority sought a destruction order under s 4(1)(a) of the Act. The justices found that, on the evidence before them, the dog remained a danger so that a destruction order was required. The owner appealed. 

It was settled law that a court’s powers were limited on an appeal by way of case stated and that it could intervene only if there had been an error of law, not an error of fact. An error of law included a decision which no reasonable tribunal could reach on the evidence before it. Whether the court would reach the same decision was not material; only if the decision in law was irrational could it interfere. A court should not order destruction if it was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll