By CAMERON LUCADOU-WELLS: clucadou-wells@mmpgroup.com.au
– SEE: Vu Ho the fighter: Sheep, prison, Viet Cong, pirates
SPRINGVALE refugee Vu Ho faces a $200,000-plus legal bill after
losing his Court of Appeal battle against Greater Dandenong council to
keep his pet sheep, Baa, at home.
After the verdict last Thursday, Mr Ho did not rule out appealing to the High Court – and he was confident of a win.
“I risked my life to get here [to Australia] so it’s nothing to lose money,” he said.
Have your say: Do you think Vu Ho should be allowed to keep Baa at his Springvale home? Post a comment below.
Court of Appeal judges Chris Maxwell, Pamela Tate and Gregory
Garde unanimously dismissed Mr Ho’s appeal, awarding costs against him
as well as about $168,000 costs from the original Supreme Court trial.
Mr Ho was asking the court to overturn last year’s unsuccessful
Supreme Court action against the council, which fined him $225 and
ordered him to remove the sheep. Mr Ho had argued he should not pay the
council’s costs on the grounds of defending democracy.
Court president Justice Maxwell said the case didn’t fit the category of public-interest litigation to absolve Mr Ho from the council’s costs.
Mr Ho unsuccessfully argued the council didn’t have power to make
laws about domestic animals, such as his 16-year-old pet sheep. He had
also claimed there was a conflict between the state’s domestic animal
and wildlife laws and the council’s planning scheme.
At the hearing two days before the court’s decision, Justice
Maxwell praised Mr Ho’s 116-page submission for its clarity and detail.
“It’s extremely well presented, clear and comprehensive,” Justice
Maxwell said. “I haven’t seen such well-directed research by an
unrepresented litigant … for some time.’’
Mr Ho said he would “fight to the end” to prevent the council
taking away his sheep which, according to the council’s local laws, is
not permitted to be kept on land less than half a hectare.
Greater Dandenong mayor Angela Long said ratepayers should not
bear the cost of responding to an “entirely unnecessary and unwarranted”
court matter.
“For this reason [the] council sought to have Mr Ho pay the court
costs,” she said. “It is Mr Ho who has chosen to take Greater Dandenong
city council to court when he has always been made aware there were
other reasonable and far cheaper options available to him.”
Cr Long said the council had offered to find another home for Baa
and suggested other actions that ‘‘would not place Mr Ho’s future in
such financial jeopardy”.
