The decision, which by law cannot detail names or locations, described how the woman found her neigbour’s dog Buddy in her fenced backyard on October 16 last year. Oliver, her cat, was also in the backyard with serious injuries after being attacked by the canine.
Oliver was rushed to a vet who determined the injuries were not survivable. Oliver was euthanised, as was Buddy who was first taken into the custody of the local district council.
Given Buddy’s owners agreed he was to be put down, the council declined to take further action against the owners. Oliver’s owner then claimed various costs associated with the attack, initially totalling just under $5000.
She first attempted to claim the full $2990 vet bill, but later confirmed insurance had paid the bulk of that and sought only the remaining $747. The tribunal agreed it was reasonable that Buddy’s owners paid the outstanding sum and ordered as such.
She also successfully sought reimbursement for a $250 ashes box for Oliver’s remains. The tribunal said this was a reasonable cost - even though “[the neighbours] were unable to pay a similar cost for Buddy once he was euthanised”.
“That does not affect the position that as owners of Buddy, [the neighbours] remain liable for the damage caused by him,” the tribunal ruled.
The cat’s owner also claimed $26.45 for mileage costs incurred travelling to the vet clinic and collecting the ashes box from the manufacturer. The tribunal awarded the costs in respect of the vet visit, but not the ashes box, which did not require a specific trip and could have been picked up during regular errands.
The woman also claimed $250 as reimbursement for claiming a day of sick leave on the day of the attack, as well as $154.41 for time spent “dealing with the matter” on the same day.
“I am not satisfied that [Oliver’s owner] can claim, as she has sought to do, an hourly rate for time spent dealing with this matter.” The tribunal dismissed both claims.
Finally, the cat owner sought $1157.43 for “mental distress”. The sum was to be used for counselling, the woman said.
The tribunal said while it was clear the attack “had a huge impact” on the woman, the tribunal hearing occurred four months after Oliver’s death. She had not yet undergone any counselling. “She has therefore not suffered any financial loss in relation to this.”
The tribunal then addressed an allegation from the dog’s owner, who ran a small cake-making business. She claimed her neighbour had left a negative online review of her business in the month after the attack.
“While this was not part of any claim before me, [the cat owner] stated at the hearing that the comment had already been removed and she would, after the hearing, remove the one-star rating.”
In total, the cat owner was awarded $1015.15.
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
