QLD Fancy Gold Fish - Possession

[Sunny]

Hello,
This is a little odd so I'll try to be as brief as possible.
I rent a property in QLD and in the lease it had a fish pond but there is nothing about who owns the fish. I had an accident at the property resulting in serious injuries found to be due to very unsafe stairs rendered a public safety by council. Due to being off work for several months, unable to drive and essentially house bound for many months I did (as advised) lodge a claim against the owner/agent and this is on foot.

I have made a point to the agent how much I love the fish and how well they are doing on each visit. I then (several months after my accident) get an entry notice that they are filling in the pond and removing the fish. There are 30 fancy gold fish and newly hatched gold fish. Their repair person is not equipped to transport and move and relocate these fish safely. In fact I believe the move to be retaliatory as they know I love the fish and it has been said that the owner is angry regarding my injury claim. There remains other safety issues at the property including an insecure front door and hazardous external tiles that pose significant ongoing personal safety risk that have remained un-repaired. There was no legal requirement to fill the pond in and we have no children living here nor visiting however I do understand that in future this may be an issue that an owner may well want to do without the problem.

As I am very environmentally focused I was upset. I pointed out I would pay the cost of safety mesh for the fish pond and take the fish at the end of the tenancy as I believed they had been abandoned and that the owners did not in fact now own the fish according to law.

The legal question is do I have a legal right to take the fish if I have been caring for them and some have bred over that time and the owner (who is an investor) seeks to fill the pond in anyway? It seems the owner is content for me to pay for the mesh (which will be hundreds of dollars) but not take the fish at the end?

I would appreciate views. Legal or otherwise.

 

[Clancy]

I would say it is more about liability than revenge.
When there is a safety claim made, it tends to spin people off into a panic and they will overreact to every possible safety issue.

Ponds ARE a safety issue. Just saying there are no children around does not reduce the liability, sorry. And they are not going to listen to you regarding ways of keeping the pond or the fish, since from their perspective, you look like a hypocrite.

 

[Sunny]

Thank you Clancy,
The owner has agreed to my paying for the safety mesh but they now want to retain the fish also. They previously sought to get rid of the fish and fill the pond in. Either they want the fish or not? If they want the fish and expect the tenant to care for them they should pay for the safety mesh. However in this case they only want the fish if I pay for the mesh which of course I would do if I got to take the fish with me. This is the confusion.

 

[Clancy]

Thank you Clancy,
The owner has agreed to my paying for the safety mesh but they now want to retain the fish also.

Not sure what that means? Does it mean they are now keeping the pond? Well, isn't that a good result?

Remember, the fish, whom you enjoy the company of, don't know or care who they belong too, they are just enjoying being fish