Publications

Case summary: Ioannidis v Carretero [2025] NSWDC 258 – Dog attacks, psychological harm, and the limits of statutory compensation under the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW)

Published on August 22, 2025 by Thomas Felizzi

In Ioannidis v Carretero the Court considered the reach of section 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) (CAA) in the context of a traumatic dog attack. The plaintiff, Ms Mary Ioannidis, suffered both physical and psychological injuries after her dog Lexi was savagely attacked while they were walking in Mortdale. The case addresses statutory interpretation of “bodily injury,” the evidentiary challenges of causation in psychiatric injury, and the assessment of economic loss where harm arises from a single, traumatic event.

Background

On 24 April 2020, the plaintiff was walking her 11-year-old Shih Tzu, Lexi, on a retractable lead. Without warning, the defendant’s large greyhound Staffordshire bull terrier cross escaped from a nearby property and launched a brutal, sustained attack.

The plaintiff described how the dog repeatedly lunged at Lexi and herself, biting her face, neck, arms, and legs as she tried to intervene. In her words:

“… he kept running back and launching at me and he just didn’t stop. I was falling over and trying to get on my feet.”[1]

During the struggle, the plaintiff was thrown to the ground several times, suffering cuts, bruises, and ripped fingernails. Lexi’s front left leg was severed at the elbow joint. Photographs taken at the time confirmed the extent of both the plaintiff’s and Lexi’s injuries. The event left the plaintiff traumatised and later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Legal Issue: what constitutes “bodily injury”?

The primary legal question was whether psychological injury arising from witnessing the attack on Lexi could be considered “bodily injury” under section 25(1)(a) of the CAA, which imposes strict liability where a dog causes “bodily injury to a person.”

The plaintiff argued that her psychiatric injuries—grief, trauma, and PTSD—were inseparable from the physical injuries she sustained and that the Act should be interpreted to include such harm where it arises from a single traumatic event.

Statutory interpretation

Judge Catsanos held that the term “bodily injury” must be read according to its plain meaning, which refers to physical injury to the person. He rejected the argument that the emotional distress of witnessing injury to a pet could be independently compensable under the CAA.

The Court made clear that, although pets have deep emotional value, they are classified as property in law. Therefore, psychological trauma from witnessing harm to a pet does not fall within the scope of statutory compensation under section 25. To extend coverage to psychological injury stemming solely from harm to property would go beyond the purpose and language of the legislation.

Causation and indivisible psychiatric injury

While the Court excluded psychological harm flowing only from Lexi’s injuries, it accepted that the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury arose from a combination of:

• the plaintiff’s own physical injuries;
• the trauma of being attacked; and
• the distress of witnessing her dog being mauled.

Judge Catsanos recognised that these elements were clinically and causally interrelated. Dissecting the precise contribution of each was, on the evidence, artificial and unsupported. He held that when a defendant seeks to exclude part of the injury as non-compensable, the onus is on them to provide evidence capable of disentangling the causes. In this case, no such evidence was offered.

The Court therefore accepted the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury as indivisible and compensable to the extent that it was causally connected to her own physical injury and direct experience of the attack.

Economic loss and buffer award

The plaintiff sought damages for loss of earning capacity, claiming her psychiatric injuries impaired her ability to work. Although precise evidence was limited, Judge Catsanos was satisfied that she had suffered a real reduction in her earning capacity.

Consistent with established principles, the Court awarded a modest buffer in recognition of that impairment, applying a discretionary approach appropriate where loss is likely but not susceptible to precise calculation.

The Court found the defendant strictly liable under section 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW). The plaintiff was awarded $101,788.63, comprising:

• general damages for physical and psychological pain and suffering;
• medical and psychological treatment expenses; and
• a buffer for future economic loss.

However, the Court expressly declined to award damages for psychological injury arising only from witnessing the injury to Lexi, reaffirming the limits of the statutory scheme.

Key takeaways for claimant lawyers

• Strict liability is limited to bodily injury to the person – psychological trauma arising solely from witnessing harm to a pet, even in distressing circumstances, is not compensable under section 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW).
• Where psychiatric harm is multifactorial, evidence matters – if psychological injury arises from both physical injury and witnessing harm to property (such as a pet), the plaintiff may still recover if the injury is treated as indivisible and there is no evidence to separate the causes.
• Economic loss may be compensated by buffer – Courts remain open to awarding a buffer for future economic loss where loss is probable but difficult to quantify precisely, particularly in psychiatric injury cases.
• Careful framing of the injury is essential – to maximise recovery, claimant practitioners should clearly establish the connection between psychological harm and physical injury to bring it within the statutory definition of “bodily injury.”

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice. If you are seeking professional advice on any legal matters, you can contact Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers on 1800 059 278 or via our Contact Page and one of our lawyers will be able to assist you. If you or a loved one have been injured, use our Personal Injury Claim Check now.

---

[1] Ioannidis v Carretero [2025] NSWDC 258 at [3].