Jo Cooper and Angus

Jo Cooper is a singer, she is not a household name, in fact outside of Australia she is pretty much unknown.

Angus was a miniature Schnauzer who at the time of this legal dispute was not in the best of health.

It took more than 5 years, resulting in heavy legal bills, and during this time, Jo was exposed to vitriol, abuse and bullying and for what….?

Jo moved into her new apartment and discovered that there was a No Dog rule despite the fact that there were dogs residing in the building. Now I freely admit I have found the issues somewhat confusing as this is on the other side of the world, but it appears that a local bylaw allowed the management of the block to dictate to owners that they must not have a dog. This is a worldwide issue and not confined to Australia, but for those in a similar situation to Jo Cooper, maybe, just maybe, there is a lesson to be learned for all of us, and whilst I am not advocating mass legal challenges, it does raise the issue of what constitutes an unreasonable law that infringes our human rights.

This No Dog rule was accepted by many of her neighbours, who were happy that this rule applied and also accepted even by those who would have preferred to have a pet but felt they were unable to challenge the law. It also appears that the “No Dog” rule was totally ignored by some residents who continued to keep a dog, and this state of affairs was tolerated by the management company.

Legal challenge

Jo Cooper, who wanted to keep her dog legally, was not to be deterred; she challenged the law on the grounds that it was “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” conditions that bar bylaws under New South Wales law. One of her arguments was that her Miniature Schnauzer was, even then, elderly and not in good health, and she and her partner wanted to spend as much time as possible with her pet.

The initial Tribunal agreed, but a subsequent Appeals Board overturned the original judgement.

Jo Cooper launched a partially crowd-funded challenge, and the NSW Court of Appeal, the States highest court, found in her favour and awarded her all costs.

As this is a state issue, it doesn’t affect the rest of the country that has similar bylaws but, of course, can be cited in decisions elsewhere.

So why is this important and even worthy of comment? How does this affect any of us?

Asking an expert

I asked a property developer what possible objections there can be to pets. She cited the following:

Noise – Barking etc. (particularly when left).
Risk of injury to other residents by unruly dogs.
Hygiene.
Fire. Pets may chew and damage cables creating a fire hazard.

Noise can also come from badly behaved children, adults having a party, a TV, Music Centre or Radio being played loudly. We don’t ban these. As for a dog barking when left, this is an issue that affects everybody. The remedy is the same, why should the owners of a leasehold apartment have fewer rights than those who own a freehold house? You own both.
Risk of injury is a potential hazard in life from the moment you get out of bed.
Hygiene, try looking inside some folk’s homes. They are a health hazard in themselves and are created and lived in by humans without an animal in sight.
Fire. How many fires are caused by discarded cigarettes? It occurs regularly. Do we ban people from smoking in their own homes? On the contrary, with smoking bans being introduced to so many public places being at home will, in future, become the only place it is possible to smoke.

Not an isolated incident

How many people, due to no fault of their own, are denied the opportunity even to own a pet or have to use subterfuge to keep one? I recently heard of a lady with a very young daughter, willed an apartment by an elderly relative who died, only to be told that there is a no-pets rule and that to move in, she would have to part with her beloved pet Labrador which would break her daughter’s heart. (Needless to say, she didn’t!!)

Another instance is that a friend of mine who was willed an apartment in Jersey in the Channel Isles was horrified to discover that the deeds state, No dogs-No children. This makes selling the property difficult as the pool of potential buyers is highly restricted.

Isn’t it strange that you can own a property and be restricted as to whether you can own a pet? Do the same restrictions apply to having a baby or adopting a child, bearing in mind that both can be even more noisy and disruptive? Also, it is a proven fact that the presence of a pet reduces stress, lowers blood pressure and contributes to well-being.

I have sometimes wondered how many rules are imposed upon is that could be construed as Harsh, Unconscionable or Oppressive and what would be the result if they were presented to a judge with the power to change matters. What stops us? Money!!

As for Jo Cooper, the result of having to spend years fighting against the Owners Corporation of her apartment building is that she has launched an anti-bullying campaign called The Good Warrior.

And Angus, sadly he recently passed away but will be honoured in a forthcoming book called Paw and Order.