Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe: Admn 18 Dec 1996

The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4).
Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant’s means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.

Judges:

Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 380

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)

Crime, Animals, Magistrates

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928

Langridge, Canterbury City Council v Howletts and Port Lympne Estates: Admn 27 Nov 1996

The company appealed against a prohibition notice with regard to its operation of a zoo. A keeper had been attacked by tigers while they were being fed. He had died. The company appealed the terms of the notices, saying that the Act had to allow for the idiosyncracies of the particular business. The company sought particularly to establish social contact between keepers and their animals. The real issue was whether the company could properly allow an employee to enter the tigers’ enclosure. The code of practice required keepers not to enter the enclosure.
Held: The safety legislation cannot be used to specify what work can be done, only the manner in which it was to be done: ‘although in the ordinary way a dangerous piece of machinery must be securely fenced, there may be circumstances concerned with the particular task that the employer (or his employee) is doing (their work) which make it necessary that the activity, which would by any ordinary standards be regarded as dangerous, may nevertheless have a legitimacy which justifies it but which would otherwise have laid the employer open to proceedings for a breach of his statutory duty.’ and ‘The Act is not seeking to legislate as to what work could or could not be performed, but is properly concerned with the manner of its doing. ‘

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 282

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 2

Citing:

CitedColtness Iron Co v Sharp HL 1938
The court considered the extent of the duty of care owed by an employer to its employees under the Act: (Atkin) ‘In the facts of this case where the dangerous machinery was exposed for only a few minutes as the only means of effecting necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health and Safety, Animals, Licensing

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136830

Lovett v Bussey: Admn 3 Apr 1998

The defendant had blocked up a badger set. He appealed against a finding that he had not used ‘loose soil’. He said that Parliament had not intended to be using the word ‘loose’ in a dictionary definition sense of the word.
Held: ‘Loose soil’, following the four other materials referred to in section 8(5) is properly to be construed ejusdem generis with them. The use of spit sized lumps of clay may not be loose. There was no statutory requirement or implication that they should not become compacted.

Citations:

Times 24-Apr-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 399, [1998] EWHC Admin 398

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Protection of Badgers Act 1992 3 8(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Crime

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.138520

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment) Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: ECJ 15 Jul 1982

Europa Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations – Protection of animal health. 1. Although under article 36 of the treaty it is for each of the member states to determine, and, if appropriate, to alter its policy relating to animal health, the effects of health policy on imports from other member states cannot exceed the limits laid down by community law.
2. The second sentence of article 36 is designed to prevent restrictions on trade mentioned in the first sentence of that article from being diverted from their proper purpose and used in such a way as either to create discrimination in respect of goods originating in other member states or indirectly to protect certain national products.
In so far as certain facts suggest that the real aim of health measures adopted by a member state is to block, for commercial and economic reasons, imports from other member states and inasmuch as it cannot be shown that, for reasons of animal health, the only possibility open to the member state concerned was to apply those measures and that they were therefore not more restrictive than was necessary for the intended purpose, the measures in question constitute a disguised restriction within the meaning of the second sentence of article 36.

Citations:

C-40/82, [1982] EUECJ C-40/82, [1984] EUECJ C-40/82

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Animals

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.133385

In re Southern Livestock Producers Ltd: 1964

In the absence of special agreement the agister has no lien upon the livestock as he merely takes care of them and supplies them with food. Pennycuick J referred to the distinction between improvement and repair. An obligation to take care of pigs was held to be no more than maintaining them and insufficient to found a worker’s lien.

Judges:

Pennycuick J

Citations:

[1964] 1 WLR 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedYour Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd CA 14-Mar-2014
The claimant employed the defendant to manage subscription lists for the claimant’s magazines. The claimant came to seek damages, and the defendant for non-payment of its invoices. The court was now asked whether it was possible to assert a common . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Animals

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.559376

Regina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others: CA 22 Mar 1995

The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on administrative grounds. The purposes it sought to implement were not within the purposes for which the land was held, and so was invalid. As to section 120: ‘At first sight this section has little to do with the present case, since we are not dealing with the acquisition of land but with the management or use of land which the County Council acquired over 70 years ago. But the County Council is a principal council within the statutory definition; we have been referred to no statutory provision or rule of law more closely in point; any other provision, unless more specific, would be bound to require powers to be exercised for the public good; and it seems perhaps reasonable to accept that the purposes for which land may be required are or may often be those to which the land should be applied after acquisition.’ Section 120(1)(b) was the statutory authority for the power of a council to manage its land and accordingly set out the criteria by which the land was to be managed. Sir Thomas Bingham MR emphasised that it was critical to distinguish between the legal position of the private landowner and that of a landowning local authority:- ‘To the famous question asked by the owner of the vineyard (‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? St Matthew, chapter 20 verse 15) the modern answer would be clear: ‘Yes, subject to such regulatory and other constraints as the law imposes’ but if the same question were posed by a local authority the answer would be different. It would be: ‘No, it is not lawful for you to do anything save what the law expressly or impliedly authorises. You enjoy no unfettered discretions. There are legal limits to every power you have.’
and ‘The point is often made that unelected, unrepresentative judges have no business to be deciding questions of potentially far reaching social concern which are more properly the preserve of elected representatives at a national or local level….The court has no role whatever as an arbiter between those who condemn hunting as barbaric and cruel and those who support it as a traditional country sport…..This is of course a question on which most people hold views one way or the other. But our personal views are wholly irrelevant to the drier and more technical question which the court is obliged to answer. That is whether the County Council acted lawfully in making the decision it did on the grounds it did.’
Swinton Thomas LJ:- ‘Whereas the provisions of Section 120(1)(b) of the Act of 1972 are entirely apt to a decision to acquire land, they are, in my judgment singularly inapt to decisions taken in relation to management of land, and this causes difficulty in resolving the question that arises on this appeal.’

Judges:

Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Simon Brown LJ

Citations:

Gazette 26-Apr-1995, Times 23-Mar-1995, Independent 22-Mar-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1037, [1995] EWCA Civ 24, (1995) 7 Admin LR 761, [1995] 3 All ER 20

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 120(1)(b), Open Spaces Act 1906 10, Countryside Act 1968 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings and Others QBD 10-Feb-1994
A Local Authority could include ethical considerations in making a decision to ban hunting over land which it owned if the power which it sought to use was in the Act. . .

Cited by:

CitedBath and North East Somerset Council v HM Attorney General, The Treasury Solicitor (Bona Vacantia) ChD 31-Jul-2002
Land was conveyed to the Council’s predecessor on condition that it be left available for use for sports and similar recreations, and left as an open space. It was now sought to develop the land as a home for a football club. The Council sought . .
CitedRegina on the Application of Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority v the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions QBD 26-Jun-2003
Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Land, Animals

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88074

Cummings v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Mar 1999

A dog was in a public place even when the area was fenced off where it could be deemed to be public by virtue of public ownership. Private agreement between neighbours to fence of an area is insufficient.

Citations:

Times 26-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 171

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1), Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79708

Briscoe v Shattock: QBD 12 Oct 1998

A dog could be held to be a dangerous dog under the Act, even if the only danger shown was to other dogs, and not to humans. Being dangerous reflected the dog’s disposition not his acts. No eiusdem generis interpretation with other provisions was appropriate in this case.

Citations:

Times 12-Oct-1998

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871 2

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78589

Applebee v Percy: 1874

Brett J explained the distinction between animals by their nature dangerous, and animals where the particular one was, in these terms: ‘A distinction has always been taken between animals which are by nature fierce and untameable, such as tigers and others ferae naturae, and those which are not in their general nature ferocious. If a man keeps an animal of the former class, and another is injured, the owner of the animal is liable without any evidence of a scienter; but, where the animal belongs to a class which is not habitually ferocious, it is necessary to shew that its owner has notice that it has on former occasions shewn symptoms of a disposition to bite mankind.’

Judges:

Brett J

Citations:

(1874) 9 LR CP 647

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616608

Williams v Richards: CA 1907

A complaint was made to the Swansea Justices, under section 2 of the 1871 Act, in relation to the conduct of a dog which had been seen to kill sheep and lambs. The Justices dismissed the complaint on the basis that no evidence had been adduced before them to show that the dog was dangerous to mankind.
Held: The Court remitted the matter to them to hear and deal with the complaint on its merits. Lord Alverstone CJ said: ‘Having regard to the fact that the previous legislation, namely, the Dogs Act, 1865, shews that the intention was to protect people’s property, I can see no reason why the word ‘dangerous’ in s. 2 of the Act of 1871 should be construed as meaning only ‘dangerous to mankind”

Judges:

Lord Alverstone C

Citations:

[1907] 2 KB 88

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.616609

Kingsnorth v Bretton And Another: 27 Apr 1814

A magistrate who convicts an unqualified person of killing game under the stat. B Ann. e. 14, and causes his dog to be brought for the purpose of seizing it, may order the dog to be killed without any formal adjudication of seizure.

Citations:

[1814] EngR 315, (1814) 5 Taunt 415, (1814) 128 ER 750

Links:

Commonlii

Animals, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.337308

Haigh v West: CA 1893

The court was asked about rights of pasturage granted over a public highway. The neighbouring land owner, and Lord of the Manor, claimed damages from the tenant for trespass in pasturing his sheep on the road. There was no evidence in whom the soil of the road vested.
Held: It was to be presumed that the road vested in the church wardens as trustees or alternatively, and to the extent that was not correct, that they had acquired a title by adverse possession. The highway had originally all been grass but for the 20 years prior to the start of the claim, it had been metalled in the middle with grass at the sides. It was the grass at the sides which was used by the tenants of the church wardens for pasturing sheep.
Lindley LJ said: ‘apart from all presumptions the parish have in our opinion gained a title to these parish lanes by the Statute of Limitations. The vestry have by their tenants occupied and enjoyed the lanes for more than a century and this occupation and enjoyment is that of the church wardens and overseers acting through the vestry. We see no legal difficulty in the acquisition by the church wardens and overseers of a title by the Statute of Limitations, although, of course, the title so acquired must be subject to the public right of way.’

Judges:

Lindley LJ

Citations:

[1893] 2 QB 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSmith, Regina (on the Application of) v The Land Registry (Peterborough Office) Admn 13-Feb-2009
The applicant sought judicial review of the cancellation of his application for first registration of land by adverse possession. The application had been rejected because a public right of way existed through it, and the claimant had not shown the . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Land Registry (Peterborough Office) and Another CA 10-Mar-2010
The appellant had lived in a caravan on the verge of a byway and had been here for more than twelve years. He appealed against rejection of his request for possessory title. He said that there was no support in law for the maxim that adverse . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Animals

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.320864

Coldman v Hill: CA 1918

A bailee of cattle who had without negligence let them escape and be lost.
Held: he was blameless in detinue but negligent in that he had failed to inform the owner of the loss as soon as possible, a duty which the court found to arise out of the contract of agistment. Scrutton LJ said that a bailee must show that the goods were lost without default on his part. D. If the property is stolen, and he does not promptly after discovery of the theft notify the bailor or the police of that fact, the burden lies on him of proving that prompt notification to the bailor or to the police would not have led to the recovery of the goods undamaged. The owner of land on which stock are agisted is the bailee and has possession of the cattle, and must take reasonable and proper care of the stock. A contract of agistment is a contract under which an agister agrees, for payment, to provide grazing for, and to supervise and look after, the owner’s stock on land that the agister owns or occupies.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ

Citations:

120 LT 412, [1919] 1 KB 443, [1918] All ER Rep 438

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHoughland v R R Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd CA 1962
A passenger’s bag had been placed in one coach that had broken down was intended to be transferred to a second coach. When the second coach arrived at the passenger’s destination the bag was not in the hold.
Held: The duty of care of a bailee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agency, Animals, Negligence, Torts – Other

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.549238

Willoughby And Others v Horridge: 19 Nov 1852

The lessees of a ferry provided steam-boats for the conveyance of passengers, goods, and cattle from A. to B., and also slips for landing and embark ing, which were (generally) sufficient for the purpose :—Held, that they were liable for an injury sustained by the horse of a passenger, in consequence of the side-rail of the landing slip (of the dangerous state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although the horse was at the time under the control and management of its owner.

Citations:

[1852] EngR 1026, (1852) 12 CB 742, (1852) 138 ER 1096

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.296149

Holliday v Morgan: 2 Nov 1858

A warranty of soundness, oil the sale of a horse, is broken by a malformation, existing from the birth of the horse, which, at the time of the sale, renders the horse less fit for reasonable use. – As an extraordinary convexity of the cornea of the eye, producing shortsightedness, in consequence of which the horse is liable to shy. – Such a defect in the eye is not so patent a defect that a purchaser with express warranty is bound to notice it.

Citations:

[1858] EngR 1066, (1858) 1 El and El 1, (1858) 120 ER 808

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Animals

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.289537

Pearson v Coleman Bros: 1948

A child, visiting the circus, left the tent to relieve herself. She passed the lions’ runway, where she was mauled. She sought damages for personal injury.
Held: The only people invited into that enclosure were those who came through the proper entrance. However, having entered the circus as an invitee, and there being no proper facilities, it was foreseeable that a child would not take heed of the warnings, and for this purpose she was an invitee. The circus was liable in negligence.

Citations:

[1948] 2 All ER 274

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.190056

Leeds City Council v Spencer: CA 6 May 1999

The defendant appealed against an order refusing to set aside an enforcement notice served by the council for his failure to destroy rats and mice on his land.
Held: A local authority had a statutory duty to collect waste, and could not therefore serve a notice, requiring a landowner to clear his land of rubbish, and to remove rats and mice which had gathered. That duty was its own, and could not be moved onto others.

Citations:

Times 24-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1351

Statutes:

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Animals, Environment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.146266

South Kesteven District Council v Mackie and Others: CA 20 Oct 1999

Where animals, which would be counted as dangerous wild animals, were used as performing animals through the summer months, but were kept in settled winter quarters, there was still no need for the keeper to obtain a licence for that keeping.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Licensing

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89412

Flack v Hudson and Another: CA 22 Nov 2000

Where a co-keeper of a horse was unaware of the animal’s propensities, she remained able to claim damages from the other keeper who knew of, but did not disclose, the animal’s character. There was nothing in the Act to limit the general rights and duties of a bailor and bailee. The Act created no presumption that the knowledge of each co-keeper of an animal would be the same.

Citations:

Times 22-Nov-2000, Gazette 23-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 6(3) 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.80595

Normand v Lucas: 1993

A lady had fallen in the street and was sitting on a wall when the appellant appeared, along with a small Jack Russell dog. The lady who had fallen encouraged the dog to sit on her knee whilst she was on the wall. She leaned forward and the dog unexpectedly bit her face. Her husband left the scene to summon help from a relative, along with an ambulance. Other individuals appeared on the scene and at the stage when the injured lady was being put into the ambulance the dog bit someone else.
Held: The Court noted that while there may not have been evidence from which the sheriff could have inferred that the dog was dangerously out of control when it bit the first lady by the stage of the subsequent bite ‘there was material upon which the sheriff could have inferred that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone’.

Citations:

1993 GWD 15-975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedTierney v Valentine 1994
A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them . .
CitedThomson v Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead HCJ 16-Dec-2009
The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals, Crime

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.503462

Lewis, Regina (on the Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council: Admn 20 Dec 2007

The claimant sought registration of an open area as a Commons under the 2006 Act. Until 2002 it had been tenanted by a golf club. The inspector had recommended against registration, saying that the use by the public for lawful pastimes had been for more than twenty years, but that this use had been generally deferential to the tenants, and so had not been as of right’.
Held: To establish a common, the use had to be ‘as of right’ and the use had acknowledged the tenants’ and therefore the land-owners’ rights. The claim for a common failed.

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 3166 (Admin), [2008] JPL 1156, [2008] ACD 38

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 79/409/EC of 2nd April 1979, on the Conservation of Wild Birds, Commons Act 2006 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromLewis, Regina (on the application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another CA 15-Jan-2009
The claimants sought registration of land as a common, saying that it had been used by the local residents for social activities for many years. The council had licenced the land for use as a golf course for many years.
Held: The residents’ . .
At First InstanceLewis, Regina (on The Application of) v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Another SC 3-Mar-2010
The claimants sought to have land belonging to the council registered as a village green to prevent it being developed. They said that it had for more than twenty years been used by the community for various sports. The council replied that it had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, European, Land

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.271202

Searle v Wallbank: HL 1947

There existed an ancient common law immunity in respect of animals straying onto a public highway. An owner or occupier of land adjacent to a highway has no legal obligation at common law to highway users so to keep and maintain his hedges, fences and gates as to prevent animals from straying on to it, and that he is not under any duty as between himself and users of it to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying on to it.
Lord du Parcq said that there is ‘an underlying principle of the law of the highway is that all those lawfully using the highway . . must show mutual respect and forbearance.’ He went on to explain the Fardon case: ‘Nevertheless, Lord Atkin’s proposition will be misunderstood if it is not read as subject to two necessary qualifications: first, that where no such special circumstances exist negligence cannot be established merely by proof that a defendant has failed to provide against the possibility that a tame animal of mild disposition will do some dangerous act contrary to its ordinary nature, and, secondly, that even if a defendant’s omission to control or secure an animal is negligent, nothing done by the animal which is contrary to its ordinary nature can be regarded, in the absence of special circumstances, as being directly caused by such negligence.’
Lord Porter was careful to distinguish the difference between animals that stray onto a highway, from which no liability flows, and animals that are brought onto a highway deliberately, when reasonable care must be exercised to control them

Judges:

Lord du Parcq, Lord Porter

Citations:

[1947] AC 341, [1947] 1 All ER 12, (1947) 176 LT 104, (1947) 63 TLR 24, [1947] LJR 258

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ExplainedFardon v Harcourt-Rivington 1932
The court set out the reasonable man test for forseeability: ‘If the possibility of danger emerging is reasonably apparent, then to take no precautions is negligence; but if the possibility of danger emerging is only a mere possibility which would . .

Cited by:

CitedWilson v Donaldson CA 9-Jul-2004
Cattle strayed from a field onto the road. A motorist was injured and claimed damages. The farmer appealed.
Held: the judge had been correct that the farmers should have recognised the risk, and taken simple and inexpensive steps to avoid the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.214658

Tierney v Valentine: 1994

A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them and then started to bark and jump at the two children. One of the children began to scream, whereupon the dog bit that child in the foot. It then bit the other child on the leg and bit the first child again on the leg. This child got off the swing and started to run away. The dog bit her arm. It was at that point that the appellant intervened, caught the dog and put it on a lead’. The sheriff had noted the terms of section 10(3) saying: ‘Having regard to the evidence, I took the view that during the course of the events on (the date of the incident) the dog became dangerously out of control because, as matters developed, there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure someone, although there were no such grounds at the outset’.
Held: The sherrif’s approach was rejected: ‘The occasion which arose in this case, to which the definition in section 10(3) should be referred, was the occasion of the incident described in the findings. That was a single incident and it was an incident at the beginning of which this dog was found not to be dangerously out of control. Since it was a single incident with no appreciable interval, there was no stage at which it could be said that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person before it was all over and the dog was put on the lead. Accordingly, the essential basis for a finding of guilt on this charge was not present’.

Citations:

1994 SCCR 697

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Citing:

CitedNormand v Lucas 1993
A lady had fallen in the street and was sitting on a wall when the appellant appeared, along with a small Jack Russell dog. The lady who had fallen encouraged the dog to sit on her knee whilst she was on the wall. She leaned forward and the dog . .

Cited by:

CitedThomson v Procurator Fiscal, Peterhead HCJ 16-Dec-2009
The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals, Crime

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.503463

Mitchil v Alestree: 1726

In an action upon the case brought against the defendant, for that he did ride an horse into a place called Lincoln’s Inn Fields, (a place much frequented by the King’s subjects, and unapt for such purposes) for the breaking and taming of him, and that the horse was so unruly, that he broke from the defendant, and ran over the plaintiff, and grievously hurt him, to his damages, andC.
Upon not guilty pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved by Simpson in arrest of judgment, that here is no cause of action: for it appears by the declaration, that the mischief which happened was against the defendant’s will, and so damnum absque injuria; and then not shewn what right the King’s subjects had to walk there; and if a man digs a pit in a common into which one that has no right to come there, falls in, no action lies in such case.
Curia contra, It was the defendant’s fault, to bring a wild horse into such a place where mischief might probably be done, by reason of the concourse of people. Lately, in this Court an action was brought against a butcher, who had made an ox run from his stall and gored the plaintiff; and this was alledged in the declaration to be in default of penning of him.
Wylde said: ‘If a man hath an unruly horse in his stable, and leaves open the stable-door, whereby the horse goes forth and does mischief; an action lies against the master.’
Twisden: ‘If one hath kept a tame fox, which gets loose and grows wild, he that kept him before shall not answer for the damage the fox doth after he hath lost him, and he hath resumed his wild nature.’

Judges:

Twisden, Wylde JJ

Citations:

[1726] EngR 590, (1726) 1 Vent 295, (1726) 86 ER 190 (B)

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedWoodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
CitedFarraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.379170

Dovaston v Payne: CCP 10 Jan 1795

A plea in bar of an avowry for taking cattle damage-feasant, that the cattle escaped from a public highway into the locus in quo, through the defect of fence, must show that they were passing on the highway when they escaped; it is not sufficient to state that being in the highway they escaped.

Citations:

[1795] EngR 4015, (1795) 2 H Bl 527, (1795) 126 ER 684

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedJones and Lloyd v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 23-Jan-1997
The appellants had been peacefully protesting at Stonehenge. They were among others who refused to leave when ordered to do so under an order made by the police officer in charge declaring it to be a trespassory assembly under the 1986 Act. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.356360

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Gmbh and Another v Council of European Union etc: ECFI 3 Feb 2000

Where the purpose of European legislation was to protect public health by, in this instance, prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to farm animals, that purpose was to be given effect even though it might have severe and adverse financial consequences for private individuals and companies.

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-2000, T-125/96

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals, Health

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78463

The Case of Swans: 1572

A prescription to have all wild swans, which are ferae naturae and not marked, building their nests, breeding, and frequenting within a particular creek, is not good.
All white swans not marked, having gained their natural liberty, and swimming in an open and common river, may be seised to the King’s use by his prerogative.
A swan is a Royal fowl, and whales and sturgeons are Royal fish.
Every one who hath swans within his private waters hath a property in them.
A man may prescribe to have a game of swans within his manor, and may prescribe that his mans may swim within the manor of another.
A swan may be an estray.
Cygnets belong equally to the owner of the cock and the owner of the hen, and shall be divided betwixt them.

Citations:

[1572] EngR 403, (1572-1616) 7 Co Rep 15, (1572) 77 ER 435

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals, Constitutional

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.432369

Scamler v Johnson: 1729

Trespass quare clausum fregit, and herbam suam depastur. The defendant pleaded that J. Ramsey, long before the trespass, was seised of an ancient messuage with the appurtenances, and prescribed for common of pasture, in the plaintiff’s close for his cattle, levant and couchant on tbe said messuage, with the appurtenances, and made title to the wife of Ramsey for her life, who bad entred and adhuc seisata existit, and conveyed to himself the said messuage at, the will of the wife, and justified utendo communia praedict’. Whereupon the plaintiff demurred. And Sanders for the plaintiff said, that the prescription is not good, for cattle cannot be levant and couchant on a messuage. Holt for the defendant, that the prescription is good, and a messuage comprehends the curtilage, which may be an acre or more, on which the cattle may be levant and couchant. And per Cur. the prescription is good, for it is not a common appendant but appurtenant, and such commori is usual in the county of Lincoln, and other counties, and that this is maintainable better for cattle levant and couchant than otherwise, 2. It was objected that the life of Frances ia not aver’d, and if she be dead, the defendant her lessee at will hath no title, But non allocatur; for (adhuc seisita existit) is a good averment of her life.

Citations:

[1729] EngR 214, (1729) T Jones 227, (1729) 84 ER 1230 (A)

Links:

Commonlii

Agriculture, Land, Animals

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.388162

X v Netherlands: ECHR 1962

As a legitimate aim, a Government may rely upon ‘the protection of public . . health’, which includes the health of animals as well as of humans.

Citations:

(1962) 5 YB 278, 1068/61

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedSuryananda, Regina (on the Application of) v The Welsh Ministers Admn 16-Jul-2007
The claimants, trustees of a Hindu temple, sought judicial review of a decision that a bullock in their temple should be slaughtered having positively reacted to a test for bovine tuberculosis bacterium. They said that the animal posed no threat . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.258291

Bates v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 1996

The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act.
Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.

Citations:

26280/95, Unreported, 16 January 1996

Statutes:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedSheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Animals, Crime

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.218814

McHugh v Union Bank of Canada: PC 1913

There was a mortgage of horses, which the mortgagee needed to drive to market if he was to sell them.
Held: If a mortgagee goes on with a sale of property which is unsaleable as it stands, a duty of care may be imposed on him, when taking the necessary steps, first to render the mortgaged property saleable. The mortgagee owed to the mortgagor a duty to take proper care of the horses whilst driving them to market. The duty imposed on the mortgagee was to take care to preserve, not increase, the value of the security.

Judges:

Lord Moulton

Citations:

[1913] AC 299

Cited by:

CitedSilven Properties Limited, Chart Enterprises Incorporated v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Vooght, Harris CA 21-Oct-2003
The claimants sought damages from mortgagees who had sold their charged properties as receivers. They said they had failed to sell at a proper value. They asked whether the express appointment in the mortgage of receivers as agents of the mortgagor . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Equity

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187038

Barnard v Evans: 1925

‘causing unnecessary suffering’ under the Act means doing something which it is not reasonably necessary to do and which is not justified.

Citations:

[1925] 2 KB 794

Statutes:

Protection of Animals Act 1911 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedRoyal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, Regina (on the Application Of) v Shinton Admn 30-Jun-2003
The defendant was licensed to set Larson traps to catch magpies. The traps worked by keeping a magpie as a decoy to attract others. The evidence was that the trapped magpie suffered distress and injury because the trap was so small as not to allow . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185836

Lynch v Nurdin: 1841

The defendant’s servant left his cart and horse on a street where children were playing. A child climbed on the wheel of the cart, other children disturbed the horse, and the child was injured.
Held: The judge had correctly left it to the jury to decide whether the defendant was negligent through his servant. If the servant had been negligent the action was maintainable.

Citations:

(1841) 1 QB 29, (1841) Arn and H 158, (1841) 113 ER 1041, [1841] EngR 52

Links:

Commonlii

Cited by:

CitedBritish Railways Board v Herrington HL 16-Feb-1972
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers
The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser.
Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a . .
CitedCooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland HL 1909
Lord Atkinson said: ‘The duty the owner of premises owes to the persons to whom he gives permission to enter upon them must . . be measured, by his knowledge, actual or imputed, of the habits, capacities and propensities of those persons.’ and ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Negligence

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.182877

Breeden v Lampard: CA 21 Mar 1985

A riding accident occurred at a cubbing meet. The plaintiff’s leg was injured when the defendant’s horse kicked out. A claim was advanced under section 2. This horse, like any horse, was liable to kick out when approached too closely, or too quickly, from behind, but there was no evidence to suggest that it was anything more than a normal 5-year old horse.
Held: If liability is based on the possession of some abnormal characteristic known to the owner, then there is no sense in imposing liability when the animal is behaving in a perfectly normal way for all animals of that species in those circumstances, even though it would not be normal for those animals to behave in that way in other circumstances, for example, a bitch with pups or a horse kicking out when approached too suddenly, or too closely, from behind. The second limb of requirement (b) is ‘refining what is meant by abnormality, not imposing a head of liability contrary to the main thrust of section 2(2)(b)’.
Oliver LJ said he could not believe Parliament intended to impose liability for what was essentially normal behaviour in all animals of the species, and ‘In relation to a characteristic which is not infrequently, although not invariably, found in domestic animals of a particular species in particular circumstances, so that the exhibition of that characteristic in those circumstances cannot be said to be abnormal in the species, it is still necessary in my judgment to show that the keeper knew of the existence of that characteristic in the particular animal in those particular circumstances. In my judgment it is not sufficient to say that the behaviour complained of is behaviour which, in the particular circumstances, is sufficiently common to put the keeper on notice that because the animal belongs to the relevant species there is a risk that in the particular circumstances it may prove (there having been no previous knowledge on the part of the keeper that the particular animal is prone so to behave) to be one of those animals which does in those circumstances behave in that way.’

Judges:

Oliver and Lloyd LJJ and Sir George Waller

Citations:

21 March 1985 (Unreported)

Statutes:

Animals Act 1971 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DistinguishedMirvahedy v Henley and Henley CA 21-Nov-2001
Horses with no abnormal characteristics were panicked, ran out and collided with a car. The car driver sought damages.
Held: The question was not whether the animals betrayed abnormal characteristics of which the owners should have been aware, . .
CitedMirvahedy v Henley and another HL 20-Mar-2003
The defendants’ horses escaped from the field, and were involved in an accident with the claimant’s car.
Held: The defendants were liable under section 2(2). To bolt was a characteristic of horses which was normal ‘in the particular . .
PreferredChristopher John Gloster v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police CA 24-Mar-2000
The plaintiff was a police officer. While carrying out his duties he was bitten by a police dog, an Alsatian, which had been trained to be aggressive when working. The claim failed, largely on the ground that on the particular facts the damage was . .
CitedWelsh v Stokes and Another CA 27-Jul-2007
The claimant sued a riding stables after she was badly injured on being thrown from the horse provided. Her claim in negligence failed, but she succeeded under strict liabiilty under the 1971 Act, after the judge relied upon hearsay evidence.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180025

Langton, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Another: Admn 15 Aug 2018

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary’s policy of supplementary culling of badgers in areas where there has already been an intensive cull.
Held: Refused.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 2190 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Badgers Act 1973, Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621161

Haynes v Harwood: CA 1935

The plaintiff, a policemen saw a horse running loose in the street among children. He ran out, chased it and caught it but was injured.
Held: The horseowner was liable. It was foreseeable that if a horse was let loose in a crowd, somebody, particularly a policeman under a general duty to assist, would attempt to capture it and might be injured in the process. The defendant could not raise a plea of volenti non fit injuria in this case. His action was an errand of mercy, and it was by reason of that activity that he fell within the categories of persons for whom the defendant owed a duty of care.
Greer LJ said: ‘It is not necessary to show that this particular accident and this particular damage were probable; it is sufficient if the accident is of a class that might well be anticipated as one of the reasonable and probable results of a wrongful act’

Judges:

Greer LJ

Citations:

[1935] 1 KB 146

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedJebson v Ministry of Defence CA 28-Jun-2000
The claimant was a guardsman travelling in the rear of a service lorry. He fell from the tailgate suffering severe injury. He was drunk after a social trip.
Held: Though a person could normally expect to be responsible himself for incidents . .
CitedMitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council HL 18-Feb-2009
(Scotland) The pursuers were the widow and daughter of a tenant of the respondent who had been violently killed by his neighbour. They said that the respondent, knowing of the neighbour’s violent behaviours had a duty of care to the deceased and . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police CA 31-May-1991
The defendant policed a football match at which many people died. The plaintiffs, being relatives and friends of the deceased, inter alia suffered nervous shock having seen the events either from within the ground, or from outside or at home on . .
CitedAlcock and Others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police QBD 31-Jul-1990
Overcrowding at a football match lead to the deaths of 95 people. The defendant’s employees had charge of safety at the match, and admitted negligence vis-a-vis those who had died and been injured. The plaintiffs sought damages, some of them for . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Animals

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.189966

Cutler v United Dairies: CA 1933

A horse pulling one of the defendant’s vans was seen running loose without a driver. It left the roadway onto private land. The driver caught up and called for help. The plaintiff jumped into the field and was injured trying to restrain the horse. There was evidence that the horse had bolted twice before.
Held: Any negligence of the defendants did not contribute to the accident. The plaintiff’s actions amounted to a novus actus interveniens, and since he must have expected to run a risk of injury, they also allowed the defence of volentia no fit injuria.

Judges:

Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ

Citations:

[1933] 2 KB 297, [1933] 102 LJKB 663, [1933] LT 436

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedWooldridge v Sumner and Another CA 4-Jun-1962
The plaintiff photographer was injured when attending a show jumping competition at the White City Stadium. A horse caught him as it passed.
Held: The defendant’s appeal against the finding of negligence succeeded: ‘a competitor or player . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Animals

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.188820

Commission v Netherlands: ECJ 2 Oct 2003

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of Annex III – Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure – Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and from fertilisation – Ensuring that the amount of livestock manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified amount per hectare – Provisions contained in a code of good agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and procedures for the land application of fertilisers – Obligation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions necessary

Citations:

C-322/00, [2003] EUECJ C-322/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 91/676/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Animals, Environment

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.186872

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Food Standards Agency: CA 20 Jun 2017

Appeal from refusal of judicial review of the system for imposing controls on slaughterhouses.

Judges:

Jackson, Rafferty, Kitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 431, [2017] WLR(D) 422, [2018] PTSR 1330

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 2-Jul-2015
A bull was bought at auction, certified ante-mortem as fit, and slaughtered. On slaughter however it was found to suffer a form of septicemia. The claimant disagreed, but the defendant said there was no appeal from the Official Veterinarian’s . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 24-Jul-2019
Cleveland Meat Company Limited purchased a bull at Darlington Farmers market. After the animal was slaughtered, the Official Veterinarian (‘OV’) found that the animal was diseased and so declared it unfit for human consumption, and refused to award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.588317

Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: Admn 2 Jul 2015

A bull was bought at auction, certified ante-mortem as fit, and slaughtered. On slaughter however it was found to suffer a form of septicemia. The claimant disagreed, but the defendant said there was no appeal from the Official Veterinarian’s decision.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1896 (Admin), [2015] PTSR 1383

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThe Association of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Food Standards Agency CA 20-Jun-2017
Appeal from refusal of judicial review of the system for imposing controls on slaughterhouses. . .
At first InstanceAssociation of Independent Meat Suppliers and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency SC 24-Jul-2019
Cleveland Meat Company Limited purchased a bull at Darlington Farmers market. After the animal was slaughtered, the Official Veterinarian (‘OV’) found that the animal was diseased and so declared it unfit for human consumption, and refused to award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.549789

Commission v Bulgaria C-97/17: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Environment – Conservation of Wild Birds – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Protection of nature – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Special Protection Area (SPA) – Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 – Important Bird Area (IBA) – IBA Rila – Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:285, [2018] EUECJ C-97/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Animals

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609302

Freen and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD 29 Jun 2000

A ‘badger sett’ does not include the earth above the tunnels and chambers forming the sett. There had been digging in the area of the sett, and above it, but no evidence of any damage to the sett itself. Because of the penal nature of the provision it was necessary to have a clear meaning for the words. The extended meaning suggested would put others in the countryside undertaking legitimate activities in danger.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Badgers Act 1992

Animals

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80682

Regina v Somerset County Council ex parte Fewings and Others: QBD 10 Feb 1994

A Local Authority could include ethical considerations in making a decision to ban hunting over land which it owned if the power which it sought to use was in the Act.

Citations:

Times 10-Feb-1994, Independent 16-Feb-1994

Statutes:

Local Government Act 1972 120(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Somerset County Council Ex Parte Fewings and Others CA 22-Mar-1995
The local authority had accepted the argument that stag hunting was cruel and had banned it from the land it owned in the Quantocks. The ban was challenged.
Held: The ban was unlawful. The decision had been reached on moral, and not on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Local Government, Animals, Land

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.88071

The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Admn 27 Jul 2017

Claim for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the slaughtering of sheep in accordance with religious rites.

Judges:

Fraser J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1961 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Animals

Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.591657

Chancepixies Animal Welfare, Regina (on The Application of) v North Kesteven District Council: Admn 6 Jul 2016

The claimant sought judicial review of the revocation by the Council of a dog breeding licence, saying that it had been made without jurisdiction.

Judges:

Edis J

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 3617 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Licensing, Local Government, Animals

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.588222

Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen: ECJ 17 Jul 2008

ECJ Regulation (EC) No 615/98 – Export refunds – Welfare of live bovine animals during transport – Directive 91/628/EEC – Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport – Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community – Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-207/06

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 615/98, Directive 91/628/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionSchwaninger Martin, Viehhandel – Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ECJ 28-Feb-2008
ECJ Opinion – Export refunds – Protection of bovine animals during transport – Rest periods – Route plan . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581323

Commission v Italy: ECJ 20 Mar 2003

(Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Special protection areas – Conservation of wild birds

Citations:

[2003] EUECJ C-378/01, C-378/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Animals

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.180070

Appeal – Henderson v M’Kenzie: SCS 18 Mar 1876

A dog was alleged to have injured one sheep and scared the rest of a flock by chasing it, and the question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session was, among others:
‘Is the second section of ‘The Dogs Act 1871,’ limited in its operation to dogs which are dangerous to human beings, and which are not kept under proper control?’
Lord Ormidale, having set out the facts and the question posed to the Court, said: ‘These questions involve very much the same thing, and in the present instance an answer either affirmative or negative to the first must also dispose of the second. Now, in regard to the limitation of the Act to dogs which are dangerous to human beings there is certainly nothing in it expressly to that effect. Neither am I satisfied, looking at the statute in all its clauses, that any such limitation was intended. The title of the Act is quite general, being simply ‘An Act to provide further protection against dogs;’ and the preamble is in the same terms. The second section, again, of the Act, being that on which the complaint is founded, provides ‘that any Court of summary jurisdiction may take cognisance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control; and if it appear that such dog is dangerous, the Court may make an order directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control, or destroyed, and that, failing compliance, he shall be liable to certain penalties. Now, it is not said here that the dog must be dangerous to human beings, although if that had been meant nothing could have been more simple or easier than to have so expressed the enactment. Nor can I find anything in the other sections of the Act indicative of the limitation of the second section to dogs dangerous to human beings.
But it is only with the second section of the Act we have to deal at present; and considering that it contains no expressed limitation of its operation to dogs dangerous to human beings, but that in the generality of its words it is fairly, and I think not unreasonably, applicable to dogs dangerous to sheep, and it may be to other property, as well as human beings, I am of opinion that the first question submitted in the case must be answered in the negative;…’
Lord Gifford concurred and the Lord Justice-Clerk said:
‘I felt at first considerable difficulty in this case, for I am not disposed that a dog can be said to be dangerous in the sense of this statute because he is liable to injure property. I am quite clear that ‘dangerous’ does not mean ‘mischievous’. But I have come to agree with your Lordships that this complaint is sufficiently relevant, and that there was no ground for refusing to proceed with the case. The quality of being dangerous relates not to the acts of the dog, but to his nature and disposition. The Sheriff is to be satisfied that he is savage, ferocious, or dangerous. This nature may be shewn and proved in a variety of ways; and although the mere act of chasing sheep may not of itself, or in all cases, indicate that a dog is dangerous, the nature of the animal may be shewn in that way as well as in others. The mistake in the questions put to us, as well as in the judgment, consists in supposing that ‘dangerous’ must be defined in relation to some object. It is not so. It is the savage nature of the animal of which the Sheriff is to be satisfied.’

Judges:

Lord Gifford

Citations:

[1876] SLR 13 – 393, [1876] 3 R page 623

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Dogs Act 1871

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Animals

Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.576931

Newby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency: SC 3 Apr 2019

The parties disputed the classification and labelling of mechanically separated meats (‘MSM’) under EU law. The ECJ had imposed a moratorium on certain products. Newby challenged that unsuccessfully, but now Newby appealed to the Supreme Court on the proper interpretation of point 1.14 in light of the CJEU judgment.
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal.

Judges:

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 18, UKSC 2017/0110

Links:

Bailii, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 19 Jan 30 am Video, SC 19 Jan 30 pm Video

Statutes:

EU Regulation No 853/2004 Annex I 1..1 . . . . . . . . 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 4) Admn 22-Nov-2013
The claimant sought an order to allow it to continue to produce meat products for sale and an associated costs award. . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 16-Jul-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 2) Admn 26-Jul-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Others Admn 24-Oct-2013
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency (No 7) Admn 7-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency and Another Admn 21-May-2014
. .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency ECJ 16-Oct-2014
ECJ Judgment – Protection of health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Hygiene rules for food of animal origin – Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 – Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ – . .
See AlsoNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency Admn 23-Mar-2016
Application of principles identified by ECJ on reference as to to the process of separating fresh meat from flesh bearing bones of pork and from chicken carcasses carried out by Newby. . .
Appeal fromNewby Foods Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Food Standards Agency CA 25-May-2017
Appeal by the Food Standards Agency against a decision in which he allowed in part a claim for judicial review by Newby Foods Limited and held, inter alia, that certain chicken and pork products manufactured by Newby should not be classified as . .
CitedRevenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, European, Consumer

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.635237

Commission v Greece C-504/14: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Nature conservation – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(2) and (3) and Article 12(1)(b) and (d) – Wild fauna and flora – Conservation of natural habitats – Sea turtle Caretta caretta – Protection of sea turtles in the Gulf of Kyparissia – ‘Dunes of Kyparissia’ Site of Community importance – Protection of species

ECLI:EU:C:2016:847, [2016] EUECJ C-504/14
Bailii
European

Environment, Animals

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571266

Riley and Others v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 18 Oct 2016

The defendants appealed by case stated from convictions under the 2006 Act arising from the treatment of cows including at a slaughterhouse. Arguments were put that the prosecution was time barred.
Held: The court recognsed the limited role of the investigators and the CPS who would eventually institute proceedings. Time started running under s.31(1)(b) of the Act once a suitably qualified CPS employee has knowledge of ‘…evidence which the prosecutor thinks is sufficient to justify the proceedings’, and the case was not time barred.

Gross LJ, Andrews J
[2016] EWHC 2531 (Admin), [2016] WLR(D) 530
Bailii, WLRD
Animal Welfare Act 2006 4(1), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 127(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMorgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
DistinguishedDonnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court and Another Admn 16-Mar-2009
A prosecutor for the purposes of the Trade Descriptions Act was the council and not an individual employee. . .
CitedRSPCA v Johnson Admn 16-Oct-2009
Appeal by the RSPCA by way of case stated from a decision refusing to hear an information laid by the Society on the basis that it was out of time. The defendant was a horse owner accused of causing suffering in his horse.
Held: Pill LJ said: . .
CitedLetherbarrow v Warwickshire County Council Admn 15-Dec-2014
This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of the Warwickshire Justices to convict the appellant on a number of counts of contraventions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Animals

Updated: 24 January 2022; Ref: scu.570265

European Federation For Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: ECJ 21 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Cosmetic products – Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 – Article 18(1)(b) – Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ – Prohibition of marketing within the European Union – Scope

ECLI:EU:C:2016:703, [2016] EUECJ C-592/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009
European

Animals

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569505

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 104
Bailii
Scotland
Cited by:
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Opinion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568775

Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105: SCS 19 Jul 2016

[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 105
Bailii
Citing:
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm . .

Cited by:
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Opinion . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568776

The Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 103: SCS 19 Jul 2016

Opinion

Lord Stewart
[2016] ScotCS CSOH – 103
Bailii
Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007
Citing:
See AlsoThe Royal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 104 SCS 19-Jul-2016
Outer House – Opinion – challenge to permission for wind farm . .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 105 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .
See AlsoRoyal Society for The Protection of Birds, Re Judicial Review CSOH – 106 SCS 19-Jul-2016
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Utilities, Animals

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.568774

Commission v Greece C-416/07: ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Directives 91/628/EEC and 93/119/EC Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Protection of animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing Structural and general infringement of Community rules

[2009] EUECJ C-416/07
Bailii
Citing:
OpinionCommission v Greece C-416/07 ECJ 2-Apr-2009
ECJ Opinion – Failure to fulfill obligations Article 226 EC Directive 91/628 Regulation No 1/2005 Protection of animals during transport and identification transporter authorizations route plans Control . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Animals

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566223

Pierson v Post: CA 1805

Post and his hounds were pursuing a fox on waste ground in Long Island when Pierson intercepted and killed it. Post sued, claiming ownership of the fox, and won at trial. The court was asked: ‘Whether a person who, with his own hounds, starts and hunts a fox on waste and uninhabited ground, and is on the point of seizing his prey, acquires such an interest in the animal, as to have a right of action against another, who in view of the huntsman and his dogs in full pursuit, and with knowledge of the chase, shall kill and carry him away?’
Held: (Livingston J dissenting) On appeal, the judgment was reversed by the New York Supreme Court, the majority view being given by Justice Tompkins. Mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, but that he became the property of Pierson, who intercepted and killed him.

Tompkins J, Livingston J
(1805) 3 Caines 175
Bailii
United States
Cited by:
CitedBorwick Development Solutions Ltd v Clear Water Fisheries Ltd CA 1-May-2020
Only Limited Ownership of pond fish
BDS owned land with closed fishing ponds. They sold the land to the respondents, but then claimed that the fish, of substantial value, were not included in the contract. The court as asked whether the captive fish were animals ferae naturae or . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Animals, Torts – Other

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.650628

Commission v Austria (Chasse Printaniere A La Becasse Des Bois): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

(Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 2009/147 / EC – Conservation of wild birds – Authorizations for the spring hunting of male specimens of the species of birds’ woodcock ‘(Scolopax rusticola) in the Land of Lower Austria (Austria ) – Article 7 (4) and Article 9 (1) (c) – Absence of ‘other satisfactory solution’ – Concept of ‘small quantities’

C-161/19, [2020] EUECJ C-161/19, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 290
Bailii
European

Animals, Environment

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654968

Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd: ECJ 19 Mar 1998

Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
ECJ (Free movement of goods) Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty – Directive 91/629/EEC – European Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes – Recommendation concerning Cattle – Export of calves from a Member State maintaining the level of protection laid down by the Convention and the Recommendation – Export to Member States which comply with the Directive but do not observe the standards laid down in the Convention or the Recommendation and use intensive farming systems prohibited in the exporting State – Quantitative restrictions on exports – Exhaustive harmonisation – Validity of the Directive

Times 02-Apr-1998, [1998] ECR I-1251, [1998] EUECJ C-1/96
Bailii, Bailii
EC Treaty 34 36, Directive 91/629/EEC
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoCompassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
See AlsoRegina on the Application of Compassion In World Farming Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Commercial, Animals, Agriculture

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.563234

Pfotenhilfe-Ungarn eV v Ministerium fur Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und landliche Raume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein: ECJ 3 Dec 2015

Judgment Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 – Article 1(5) – Protection of animals during transport – Transport of stray dogs from one Member State to another by an animal protection association – Concept of ‘economic activity’ – Directive 90/425/EEC – Article 12 – Concept of ‘dealers engaging in intra-Community trade’

C-301/14, [2015] EUECJ C-301/14
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

European, Animals

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556335

McMorn, Regina (on The Application of) v Natural England and Another: Admn 13 Nov 2015

The claimant gamekeeper challenged the rules imposed by the respondent for the control of shooting of buzzards. He said that buzzard predation had made his own pheasant based business unviable.
Held: The licences refusal was quashed: ‘ NE’s overall decision-making on the five applications left it well aware that the Claimant’s small business was by 2014 in dire straits. NE’s decision-making had not followed a consistent path: new requirements and evidential issues had been raised on various occasions and what had previously been regarded as settled and no longer at issue was re-opened, for example in whether serious damage existed and was caused by buzzards, and by buzzards which could usefully be controlled. The Technical Assessor had also concluded that a licence for live capture was justified, and that recommendation was being rejected. Careful scrutiny of the application is what NE said was required. In this respect, that it is not how it was dealt with. Careful scrutiny by NE of the reasons for which it was proposing to refuse was required to see if a yet further refusal of licensed control was justified.’

Ouseley J
[2015] EWHC 3297 (Admin)
Bailii

Animals

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.554642

Keeble v Hickeringall (472): 1738

[1738] EngR 472, (1688-1710, 1738) Holt KB 17, (1738) 90 ER 907
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoKeeble v Hickeringill 1796
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoKeeble v Hickeringall 1738
Holt CJ, delivered the opinion of the Court for the plaintiff, and said, that this is a new action, but is supported by the old reason and principles of law ; taking of wild-fowl is a lawful and profitable employment, it is as if it were his trade . .
See AlsoKeeble v Hickeringall (470) 1738
. .
See AlsoKeeble v Hickeringhall 1795
Case lies where the plaintiff had a possession without any property. Case in which the plaintiff declared, that he was possessed of a decoy pond frequented with ducks, of which he made great gains, and that the defendant knowing and maliciously . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Animals

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.385865

Ford v Seymour-Williams: CA 8 Dec 2021

Questions as to the scope of the strict liability obligation that arises under s. 2 of the Animals Act 1971 (‘s. 2’) (‘the Act’). It arises out of a claim by the Appellant for personal injury damages and consequential losses following an incident on 15 September 2018 when the horse that she was riding (‘the horse’) reared and fell on top of her. The Appellant suffered severe injuries. She sued the Respondent on the basis that, as keeper of the horse, he was strictly liable to her under s. 2(2) of the Act (and s. 2(2) alone); no allegations of fault-based liability were made.

Lady Justice Macur,
Lady Justice Carr,
And,
Lord Justice William Davis
[2021] EWCA Civ 1848
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Animals, Personal Injury

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.670333

Commission v Greece: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ (Judgment) Failure to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/74/EC – Articles 3 and 5, paragraph 2 – Raising of laying hens – unenriched cages – Prohibition – Breeding laying hens in cages do not comply with requirements arising under this Directive

C-351/13, [2014] EUECJ C-351/13
Bailii
Directive 1999/74/EC 3 5

European, Agriculture, Animals

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.536448