The High Court, having quashed a decision of the District Court ordering the destruction of a dog, but where the applicant failed on the legal issue which took up most of the hearing time, namely the form of remittal to the District Court: (a) ordered that parties bear their own legal costs on the grounds that it was the fairest order; and (b) refused to grant a stay on the order remitting the proceedings to the District Court, on the grounds that no stateable or arguable basis for appeal were established and the balance of justice lay in refusing the stay where it was in the interests of all, including the dog, that the question of the future of this dog be determined as expeditiously as possible.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.