RottnBullies Haven

A DOG owner has won Supreme Court action against a local council that wants to destroy her beloved pet, claiming it is an American pit bull.

Paula Nicholson said she was pleased after a judge yesterday ruled she had been denied natural justice.

But Ms Nicholson still faces an agonising wait for a review of "Pony's" case, and a final decision on his future.

She claims Pony is not a pit bull, but a bull mastiff-Staffordshire terrier cross.

She took the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council to court after its ranger impounded Pony in May as a restricted breed and told her the dog would be put down.

Ms Nicholson said in an affidavit she was shocked by the news.

"The thought of my dog Pony being destroyed has affected me emotionally and physically, and I have not been able to sleep properly," she said.

"Being an animal lover, I can not understand why anyone would want to destroy my companion and my best friend.

"Pony is a victim in this whole saga, yet he has done nothing wrong. This is a cruel and inhumane act."

The court heard Ms Nicholson appealed the ranger's decision, saying she had proof Pony was not a pit bull.

A hearing by three members of a Department of Primary Industry panel was held at the pound in July to determine Pony's breed.

In a secret ballot the panel members voted two to one that Pony was a pit bull.

Ms Nicholson claimed the panel hearing dismissed her photographic evidence of Pony's parentage and did not allow a vet called by her to fully address the hearing.

Her vet says Pony is not a pit bull and the method used by the panel to determine the breed was flawed.

Dr Gordon Watt said a panel member claimed because Pony had hazel eyes, a pink nose and rough coat he was a pit bull.

"In 24 years as a registered veterinary surgeon, I have come across many dogs with these characteristics who are not pure-bred American pit bull terriers," Dr Watt said.

Justice John Forrest said in his judgment yesterday Ms Nicholson should have been able to call evidence at the hearing, and the panel members did not perform their task within the law.

"It is clear, beyond doubt, that no proper hearing was afforded to the plaintiff," Justice Forrest said.

"The members of the panel simply examined the dog and then determined whether it did or did not conform with DPI guidelines.

"Evidence or submissions by the plaintiff were disregarded and the veterinarian was cut off by a non-panel member when giving evidence."

Justice Forrest ordered the council to hold a new hearing, noting that it should be performed by different officials.

Beloved pet: Paula Nicholson and her dog, Pony