Login
Pet detective sued over search for missing puppy
A pet detective was sued by two women who intended to steal Teddy, a six-month-old puppy, from a family with young children.
Naomi Neilson
Image credit: Facebook.
A veterinarian and her friend, a dog owner and breeder, pursued defamation proceedings against a pet detective and the distraught mother and owner of a missing King Charles Cavalier spaniel puppy over Facebook posts that desperately pleaded for his return.
The plaintiffs alleged hundreds of Facebook posts on the pet detective’s page and on various community pages had made them out to be dishonest, of ill-repute, and people who were causing “mental anguish” to two children, both under the age of six.
However, NSW District Court Judge Judith Gibson said they failed to prove the matters complained of “even existed as a single composite publication, let alone that they were read by anyone”.
While judgment was awarded to the pet detective and owner, Judge Gibson made findings, in the alternative, about whether imputations were made out and what damages would have been awarded.
Judge Gibson also concluded she was comfortably satisfied the plaintiffs intended to “permanently deprive” the owner of Teddy by taking him to a former work colleague to replace his microchip.
“On the basis of the factual findings … I am satisfied that each of the plaintiffs had the necessary intention to deprive the [owner] of ownership of Teddy, who was an item of value to any persons seeking to breed King Charles spaniels,” Judge Gibson said.
In early June 2020, the owner said she returned home to find Teddy was missing and began a search for him that included visiting local pounds and veterinary clinics, placing advertisements in shop windows and other public displays, “running commentary” on social media, and by retaining the pet detective’s assistance.
After a newspaper advertisement alerted locals to the missing dog, one resident told the owner she saw two women matching the plaintiffs’ description with Teddy. She said the women informed her they were taking Teddy to the local pound.
The veterinarian’s friend took a photo of Teddy and posted on a Facebook page for missing dogs, but this was soon deleted.
Instead of taking Teddy to the pound or to the nearby veterinary clinic – and one well-known to the veterinarian – they walked a further 14 minutes to an Aldi carpark and put Teddy in a car.
The veterinarian later told police she was taking Teddy to the home of a nearby work colleague who she had trained to read microchips.
She claimed that when she got out of the car at the colleague’s home, Teddy followed after her, escaped and ran away again. CCTV footage of a neighbour’s home confirmed the veterinarian did not “spend any time” looking for Teddy after these alleged events.
“I cannot be satisfied that Teddy did in fact jump out of the car as alleged. At the time he is asserted to have jumped out, both defendants had already established the mens rea in relation to intending to despite the first defendant of ownership of Teddy,” Judge Gibson said in her written reasons for judgment.
Judge Gibson noted the plaintiffs’ version of events was inconsistent across different accounts, including what they told police when they eventually came forward. Judge Gibson also noted the women did not approach police until after a CCTV image of them both was posted.
The pet detective and owner’s accounts were preferred. In the alternative, they would have succeeded on all defences, except on innocent dissemination and one concerning third-party commenters.
In that alternative, had the imputations all been found false, the plaintiffs would have been awarded $25,000 between them. If any imputations not requiring proof of dog stealing were true, they would have instead been awarded $6,000, Judge Gibson said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
