The court heard that Ryde had been classified as both a dangerous and a menacing dog under the Dog Control Act by the council, both in terms of its breed and because it had previously attacked another person.
Lodge is Ryde's registered owner and his partner Saul had possession of the dog at the relevant time on July 20 last year when two electricians visited their Greerton home.
The electricians were at the property to install a heat pump and arrived about 30 minutes earlier than expected, the court heard.
There was a dispute about how the attack occurred but it was accepted that as the victim walked back to his van, Ryde ran after him and bit both his hands.
An unmuzzled Ryde then returned to Saul when she called him.
The victim suffered two puncture wounds on his right hand and torn skin on his left hand, exposing flesh, which required doctors to pull skin across the wound to try and close it.
The court also heard there was possible nerve damage as a result of the attack.
Under the dangerous dog classification which lasts for life, Ryde had to be muzzled in public and controlled on a leash at all times.
A dangerous dog classification also means Ryde must be restrained in a fenced-off part of the property when someone needed to enter a door of a dwelling.
Judge Harding said he had read comprehensive written submissions from the council's lawyer Nathan Speir and the couple's legal counsel Beverley Edwards.
The judge said Speir submitted a conviction and a fine of $750 for each defendant was appropriate before credit given for guilty pleas and any mitigating factors.
The judge said Speir also argued that there were no exceptional circumstances to this offending which would mean the usual destruction order for the dog should be set aside.
Speir submitted this was "an unprovoked attack" and it was "entirely feasible" that a similar set of circumstances may happen in the future.
The victim's injuries were "moderately serious" and the defendants were "negligent" in terms of their obligations under the Dog Control Act.
Edwards said her clients did not agree with some aspects of the electrician's victim impact statement and sadly attempts to get him to participate in a restorative justice meeting had been "ignored".
Edwards urged Judge Harding to find exceptional circumstances not to convict her clients and not order Ryde be destroyed.
This included the fact that the electricians arrived early than expected and Lodge had made prior arrangements to have Ryde taken elsewhere during their visit, she said.
Edwards submitted this offending was at the lower end of the scale and a conviction was likely to impact on both of her clients' future work prospects.
She also submitted that Lodge paid $11,000 boarding fees after his dog was moved to a re-training centre by the council, in his anticipation there would be no destruction order.
Judge Harding said that was "unfortunate" but this was a strict liability offence and a destruction order was mandatory unless there were exceptional reasons not to do so.
He said Saul also knew the dog was classified as dangerous and what was required of her when visitors arrived even one-off unexpected visitors but failed to do so.
Judge Harding said Edward's submissions were "misguided" as she had traversed matters that went well outside his proper consideration.
"I regret that I am unable to find these circumstances are exceptional."
Judge Harding said he also did not find the consequences of a conviction as being out of all proportion to the gravity of their offending.
"Regrettably, I have to sign an order for destruction for Ryde," he said.
Lodge and Saul were convicted and fined $150 each plus $130 court costs.
