About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 60
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice John Jordan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice John Jordan considered that “there are well intentioned, well-motivated people on both sides of the argument which exists in relation to the ban on XL Bullies and the euthanizing of XL Bullies. That needs to be said in circumstances where it is such an emotive issue. It is clear that public safety needs to be protected. It is clear that that was the core consideration in terms of the introduction of the regulations. It is however apparent, as I have said already, that there is a fair question to be tried.”

Background

The applicants issued judicial review proceedings challenging the Control of Dogs (XL Bully) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 491/2024).

The applicants then issued a motion seeking injunctive relief restraining the Minister for Rural and Community Development, her servants or agents or anyone having notice of the making of the order sought from seizing and/or euthanising XL Bully dogs, on the basis that they are XL Bully dogs within the meaning of the Regulations from dog shelters of any relevant bodies within the meaning of the Regulations pending the determination of their proceedings.

The applicants sought a second relief restraining the Minister, her servants or agents, from enforcing the ban on rehoming XL Bully dogs which was then due to take effect on 1 February 2025 pending the determination of the proceedings

The High Court

Mr Justice Jordan indicated that should he grant the second relief sought, he would be allowing “a coach-and-four to be driven through the Regulations”.

The judge continued: “These Regulations exist for very good reason which I have touched on earlier, illustrated, but not confined to, the horrendous injuries caused to a number of people in recent years. Horrendous injuries, lifechanging injuries caused to a young boy in Wexford, horrendous injuries caused to two individuals in Cork, injuries to a one-year old child snatched out of the arms of her mother in Kerry, injuries to an eight-year-old in Dublin last year, injuries to an ISPCA worker in Longford last year and the death of a woman in Limerick, death caused by her two XL Bully dogs.”

The court considered that the need for regulation of XL Bully dogs was self-evident where they “can and do cause death and very significant injury when they attack”.

However, the court was “touched” by the extent of the care and sacrifice made by individuals of the applicant organisations, remarking that those decent people looking after and caring for dogs potentially having to see friendly and well-behaved dogs “being put to death”, needed to be looked at in the balance of justice.

Having regard to the public danger presented by XL Bully attacks, the court refused to grant the second relief sought.

In circumstances where the hearing date for the substantive proceedings is set for 27 February 2025, Mr Justice Jordan considered that if the first relief sought was refused, damages would be grossly inadequate to remedy the fact that dogs “would be dead or could be dead”, highlighting that one “cannot bring a dead dog back to life”.

In particular, the court remarked that where it was established by the applicants that there was a fair question to be tried or a good arguable case, “it would be a travesty to look back and reflect on the fact that many animals were euthanized who should not have been”.

Mr Justice Jordan considered that the appropriate balance was to grant the first relief sought. The court also pointed out that although it is a matter for the substantive hearing, it was of concern to him that in circumstances where the Regulations do not cater for error, a patently wrong decision could result in the death of a dog who should not have been euthanised.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted the first relief sought, refused the second relief sought and reserved the issue of costs in circumstances where the applicants had not been entirely successful.

My Lovely Horse Rescue & Ors v Minister for Rural and Community Development & Ors [2025] IEHC 60