Practice and Procedure

ARTHUR BRISCOE V DAVID SHATTOCK (1998)

PUBLISHED October 7, 1998
SHARE

It was for the court to analyse the evidence and to be satisfied that a dog was dangerous in the sense that it had a dangerous disposition. It could be considered dangerous for the purposes of s.2 Dogs Act even if it only posed a threat to other dogs as opposed to humans or livestock.

DC (Brooke LJ, Sedley J)

07/10/1998

CATEGORIES