SACAT Upholds Prohibition Orders Following Serious Attack on a Person

On 16 December 2025, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made orders affirming the decision of City of Mitcham (the Council) to issue Prohibition Orders under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (the Act), following a serious attack by ‘Jax’, a nine-year-old Staffordshire Bull Terrier Cross. 
 

Background 

The applicant (LF), as the person responsible for Jax and Jax’s registered owner (JP), sought a review by the Tribunal of the Council’s decision to issue Prohibition Orders against them. A Prohibition Order has two key effects: first, the person subject to the Order cannot acquire or become responsible for any dog for five years, and second, any dog owned or controlled by that person must be destroyed. In practical terms, this meant that neither LF nor JP could own or be responsible for a dog for five years, and Jax, was to be destroyed.
 

The Facts 

The Council’s decision stemmed from an incident on 27 August 2025, when Jax attacked a contractor engaged to inspect an olive tree in the garden area of the property where LF was the tenant (the property). The contractor told the Tribunal that, upon entering the property, he observed Jax roaming freely in Frome Reserve adjacent to the premises, without a muzzle, leash, or collar. The contractor stated that when he entered the property, Jax ran through an open gate leading into a courtyard area in the residential part of the property. Believing the dog had been secured inside the house, he assumed it was safe to proceed with his work.

After completing the inspection of the olive tree, the contractor was returning to his vehicle when Jax suddenly emerged from the courtyard area, aggressively charging at the contractor while barking, snarling, and baring its teeth. Jax subsequently attacked the contractor by inflicting four severe bites to his legs, requiring medical treatment. Given the severity of the injuries and the repeated attempts by the contractor to break free from the dog’s grip, the incident was classified as Level 5 on the “Dog Bite Severity Scale.”

At the time of the attack, Jax was subject to a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order (Control Order), originally imposed in 2019 and further amended with additional conditions in 2020. The Control Order required strict containment measures, including:

• Being muzzled and kept on-leash when outside the property;
• Wearing a ‘Dangerous Dog’ collar; and
• Being confined in an enclosure whenever a person not residing at the property was present.

Based on the contractor’s report of the incident, the Council alleged that the above conditions of the Control Order had been breached and that the applicants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the attack. As a result, an officer of the Council issued the Prohibition Orders on the applicants on 8 September 2025 .
 

The Tribunal’s Task and Findings  

The task of the Tribunal was to assess the Council’s decision and determine whether it was the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances. The case was presided over by the President of the Tribunal, Justice Hughes.

To determine whether the Council was justified in issuing the Prohibition Orders, the Tribunal first considered whether the requirements in Section 59A(3) of the Act were met. The Council could only make a Prohibition Order if an offence involving Jax occurred while he was subject to a Control Order. The applicants accepted that Jax was subject to a Control Order imposed in 2019 and amended in 2020, satisfying this requirement for a Prohibition Order.

However, Section 59A(4) of the Act outlines an exemption, being that the Council is unable to make a Prohibition Order if the person satisfies the Council that they did not intend the incident to occur, and it did not result from any failure on the part of that person to take all reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event. LF disputed the Council’s version of events, claiming Jax was secured behind closed doors in the house and that the courtyard gate was locked whilst the contactor was at the property. She further claimed that the incident was not intentional and that she had taken reasonable steps to manage Jax responsibly with the Control Order in place. 

However, medical records and testimony from the contractor and Council established that Jax was outside the property before the attack and later escaped through the open gate to attack the contractor. Furthermore, the Tribunal held the contractor’s testimony to be credible and consistent, while identifying inconsistencies in LF’s statements, including her incorrect assertion that the gate was locked, when it was in fact only latched closed. 

LF proposed measures to the Tribunal such as installing an enclosure and fixing a proper lock on the gate, but the Tribunal expressed doubt about her ability to comply, noting a pattern of non-compliance and Jax’s entrenched behavioural issues. The Tribunal also highlighted the absence of any evidence suggesting Jax could be rehabilitated or safely rehomed.

Upon a re-consideration of the facts, the Tribunal affirmed the Council’s decision, confirming that the Council had lawfully exercised its discretion in issuing the Orders. The Tribunal determined that the circumstances of the attack constituted an offence under section 44(2) of the Act, which makes it an offence for a person who owns or is responsible for a dog to allow it to attack, harass, chase, or otherwise endanger the health of a person. 
 

Take home messages

This case serves as a timely reminder of the responsibilities that come with dog ownership, particularly for animals with known aggressive tendencies. It also illustrates the legal framework designed to balance animal welfare with public safety, and the serious consequences that can occur when control orders are breached.

The Tribunal re-emphasised that prohibition orders serve a public purpose rather than a punitive one, stating that strong sanctions are sometimes necessary to maintain public confidence in dog management laws. Councils are entitled to rely on these tools to manage particularly difficult dog management circumstances. 

Should you wish to discuss the matters raised in this article, please contact Paul Kelly on +61 8 8210 1248 or pkelly@normans.com.au, Dale Mazzachi on +61 8 8210 1223 or dmazzachi@normans.com.au or Michael Woon on +61 8 8210 1249 or mwoon@normans.com.au.