A woman, her children and her two dogs brought proceedings against a major bank in a recent UK case.
This may be them waiting outside the court for a ruling.
According to the judgment, “That claim is sought to be brought by Mrs. M., her two infant children, and two dogs who are identified as Goldie, aged 18 months, and Diamond, aged 2 years.”
Counsel for the defendants “makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings”.
“Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person.”
The judge observes “I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it”.
He also notes: “Mrs. M. did not appear and neither do any of the other persons and animals named as claimants in the proceedings”.
And… “There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out.”
The full judgment can be consulted on BAILII here.
Though when we see that a beach might be considered to be a “village green” under the law, why can’t dogs be considered to be “persons”? 😉