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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll