Relevant factual background
Relevant factual background
I can take the key facts from the FTT’s reasons for its decision.
The owner of a take-away shop in Stoke-on-Trent kept a large and powerful adult male Alsatian dog at the rear of the premises. The index incident took place on 20 December 2022 on a remote cycle path near Colclough Lane in Stoke, where the interested party was walking with her husband. The Alsatian was with a dog walker. The dog walker held the unmuzzled dog’s long lead, which was at least 8 to 10 feet long, and stood facing away from the interested party and her husband, but between them and the dog, as they passed him on the path. The interested party therefore had to pass close to the dog walker, whereupon the dog lunged at her and bit her and wounded her left arm. The dog would not release its grip and the dog walker could not control it. The interested party pulled hard to release her left arm as a result of which she fell and suffered a broken right wrist.
- Heading
- I grant the application for judicial review of the decision of the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal of 4 March 2024 under the tribunal case reference 1698-1445-9671-4403 The Upper Tribunal’s order is
- REASONS FOR DECISION
- Relevant factual background
- The FTT’s decision
- The grounds on which permission to seek a judicial review was granted
- The parties’ skeleton arguments
- Interested party
- Relevant law
- Analysis and conclusion
- General observations
- Ground 1 - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
- Ground 2 - Failure to have regard to paragraph 2 in Annex B
- Ground 3 – Distinction between intent and recklessness
- FTT’s decision was irrational or inadequately reasoned
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 262 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)