Owners Andi Wyatt and Andrew Butler face off as dog injured in off leash oval tennis ball clash

Two Alice Springs dog owners have gone to NTCAT over a dispute on who should pay for one pet’s medical treatment when their dogs clashed at an off-leash park.

The tribunal found it was ‘difficult to accept that there is a general standard of dog etiquette which would have been breached if a tennis ball had been thrown in the presence of a group of other dogs’.

An Alice Springs GP whose dog suffered “a significant injury” in a clash with another dog at Anzac Oval has failed in a bid to force the other dog’s owner to pay for her dog’s treatment.

Andi Wyatt sued Andrew Butler in the NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for $3150 after her greyhound, Riley, collided with Mr Butler’s German shepherd, Torvi, on October 19 last year.

Dr Wyatt claimed Torvi bit Riley on her left hind midsection while the German shepherd was chasing a tennis ball thrown by Mr Butler’s partner Laura Haddad.

Riley suffered a “pretty severe” injury as a result, which veterinarian Jessica Stone observed involved “likely deep pocketing due to tearing action … resulting in large amounts of dead space” and “underlying fascia with deep pocket beneath”.

But in dismissing Dr Wyatt’s application, tribunal member Ron Levy found “the principal cause” of the greyhound’s injury was Riley’s own actions in “cutting across” Torvi’s path as she chased after the ball.

“Thereafter the combination of Riley’s forward momentum when in contact with Torvi’s teeth, together with the impact, physically caused the laceration and injury which the greyhound then suffered,” he said.

“The injury to the greyhound, Riley, was an unfortunate accident, which did not involve any attack by the German shepherd, Torvi.”

Mr Levy said even if Torvi had “instinctively and defensively reacted by biting or nipping Riley”, the main cause of the injury was still attributable to Riley’s own actions.

Alice Springs’ Anzac Oval will soon make way for the new National Aboriginal Art Gallery.

Mr Levy also rejected Dr Wyatt’s argument that Mr Butler should be held responsible because “general dog etiquette” dictated it was “not appropriate” to throw a tennis ball or similar toy “if there’s lots of other unknown dogs around”.

“This was said to be a ‘general consensus’ because ‘dogs are unpredictable’, in which respect Dr Wyatt had seen signs at interstate dog parks which imposed a restriction on the use of balls or other toys in those locations,” he said.

But Mr Levy said there was no such sign at Anzac Oval and it was “commonplace for tennis balls or frisbees to be thrown for dogs at that oval”.

“In these circumstances it is difficult to accept that there is a general standard of dog etiquette which would have been breached if a tennis ball had been thrown in the presence of a group of other dogs,” he said.

“Indeed, if Dr Wyatt had been nearby and concerned about a tennis ball being thrown for Mr Butler’s German shepherds, the most appropriate initial response would have been that she remove Riley from that part of the oval.

“And, if a ball had just been thrown, the most appropriate response would have been that she command Riley to immediately cease chasing the ball and return to Dr Wyatt.

“Dr Wyatt was unable to take either of these remedial actions, because Riley was not closely supervised at the time of the incident.”