Friday, November 18, 2005

I Love Queensland

You just have to keep up to date with Queensland cases. They are much funnier than Victorian ones. This one for example, Candy -v- Thompson.

How often, may I ask, would a Victorian go to the Court of Appeal (yes, that is one below Canberra) to argue that the (I think) single red kangaroo the wildlife officers took from your property constituted trespass? The kangaroo was called Mitchell, and was taken as a joey from the pouch of its dead mother by the appellant. It was raised as a pet. The trespass allegedly occurred because the kangaroo was the property of the appellant (despite the rescue, debateable at best').

The wildlife officers removed the kangaroo because it the appellant's 'rescue permit' (yes, apparently these exist in Queensland) had expired and the kangaroo had to be removed to the care of a qualified person, presumably a zoo or similar.

Fine so far. However, the appellant claimed $1.5 MILLION for distress and damage caused by the removal of the kangaroo. Where, exactly, would one lose $1.5 million? The distress caused by losing a pet, especially one you have rescued, must be immense. However, $1.5 mil seems a bit of a stretch.

And to claim $1.5 mil as part of a trepass action seems a bit rich also. Yes, this man has lost his pet. However, that's a lot of candy for Mr. Candy.


Post a Comment

<< Home