Cats and the law: a report for International Cat Care (iCatCare) (formerly the Feline Advisory Bureau (FAB))

This research examines the legal status of cats, within the UK’s legal system (primarily in England and Wales) but also in an international context. It considers a range of different areas of law and conflicting perspectives within the UK’s animal welfare, contract, criminal and environmental law and also addresses issues of ownership and liability. In particular, the research examines how both domestic and wild cats are subject to different protection under the law and the manner in which ambiguities concerning the status of wild and domestic cats impose liability on humans for their actions in dealing with cats. The research was commissioned by the Feline Advisory Bureau (FAB) (now International Cat Care (iCatCare)) on behalf of the Cat Group1who identified that a number of legal questions could arise for cat owners for which there does not currently seem to be a definitive answer. While the legal status of cats is, in principle, well established under common law as they are personal property, problems can occur because cats exist in a range of states e.g. feral, semi-feral, domesticated and stray. Some grey areas exist in relation to animal welfare legislation and in respect of the liabilities of cat owners. There has been little or no attention paid by legal researchers to addressing the legal status of cats except within the context of animal welfare offences, some prior research into offences involving wild cats2 and research into whether animals (including cats) can be said to have legal rights.3The research considers this issue in the context of not just the enforcement of animal welfare law but also within the context of other aspects of the law, which includes policy and ethical considerations relating to animal ownership and welfare. The research deals primarily with domestic cats in England and Wales. The primary legislation imposing responsibilities on cat owners is the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which consolidates much earlier legislation and both promotes animal welfare and provides an enforcement mechanism through which punishment may be pursued where there is a breach of animal welfare standards. The UK Animal Welfare Acts4 are part of the criminal law and impose a duty to ensure welfare (although this research is not confined to evaluating welfare considerations) and an important part of the Acts is the requirement for a ‘responsible person’ to ensure that a cat’s needs are met. However, the question of what constitutes ownership or being a responsible person and whether a cat is domestic is not always straightforward. Our research also deals with offences under wildlife legislation where these may impact on cats living in a wild state or on recognised species of wild cat. Separate from the provisions of keeping and care of a cat, the research also considers issues relating to the sale or theft of cats noting that under the common law cats are regarded as property or objects, albeit animate, in terms of being owned and possessed. Damage to a cat by a third party can be akin to (certain) property damage giving cat owners the right to take action for redress to damage to ‘their’ animal. The issue of liability is also dealt with by this research and the courts have clarified a number of issues relating to the harm caused by cats and liability in respect of that harm, which we discuss in this research, treating aspects of the common law and the imposition of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971. The question of liability is not always a straightforward issue; while there are specific provisions for example in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning nuisance caused by animals, they have been strictly interpreted so that the natural behaviour of a cat is generally not considered to be a nuisance even where damage is caused. However, cases where an excessive number of cats is kept such that their noise or odour cause harm to the health of neighbours or constitute a nuisance have also been decided such that the cat’s owner is responsible and can be required to take action to abate the 4 There is country-specific legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland; the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The three animal welfare acts have similar aims of preventing harm and promoting animal welfare although there are some differences in the respective Acts. Lincoln Law School, Middlesex School of Law - A Report for International Cat Care 7 nuisance.5 In addition, the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Code of Practice on the Welfare of Cats contains provisions on keeping cats in a suitable environment. While the Code holds ‘advisory’ status rather than itself being enforceable, we argue that the Code’s guidance combined with the Animal Welfare Act’s provisions changes the dynamics of liability such that action might be taken under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, allowing the court to consider a failure to provide the necessary catfriendly environment required by the Act (in accordance with the Code),as opposed to considering the specific nuisance requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This widens the scope of the action that might be taken against cat owners, and is significant in the fact that the focus for the imposition of liability has shifted from the harm caused to other humans to the degradation of the health and welfare of the cat. We explicitly consider this issue in the research. This research investigates different aspects of the law as it applies to cats and conducts an analysis of the requirements placed on cat owners under the law. It also considers how the law can be interpreted on issues of liability, responsibility, and the care of cats, as well as the ambiguities in the status of cats that give rise to confusion under the law. This report thus attempts to provide not only an overview of the law but our analysis of some of the main areas of confusion raised by iCatCare as causing problems for cat owners and, where applicable, for re-homing institutions.6 Some of these questions inevitably touch on compensation and recompense issues where complaints or claims for loss or damage arise. While dealing with the substantive issues of liability, responsibility and legal protection in answering questions, we only briefly deal with compensation issues as the specifics of cat, business, and even home, insurance relevant to such claims are outside the scope of this research

Cats and the law: aspects of the co-authored research undertaken for International CatCare

This research was initially commissioned by the Feline Advisory Bureau, now International CatCare, and has resulted in both a Research Report and Plain English Guide on Cats and the Law, co-author Dr Angus Nurse, Middlesex University

Communitarian perspectives on social enterprise

Concepts of social enterprise have been debated repeatedly, and continue to cause confusion. In this paper, a meta-theoretical framework is developed through discussion of individualist and communitarian philosophy. Philosophers from both traditions build social theories that emphasise either consensus (a unitarist outlook) or diversity (a pluralist outlook). The various discourses in corporate governance reflect these assumptions and create four distinct approaches that impact on the relationship between capital and labour. In rejecting the traditional discourse of private enterprise, social enterprises have adopted other approaches to tackle social exclusion, each derived from different underlying beliefs about the purpose of enterprise and the nature of governance. The theoretical framework offers a way to understand the diversity found within the sector, including the newly constituted Community Interest Company (CIC).</p

Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights: Ethical Insights for Marketers

Present copyright laws do not protect Indigenous intellectual property (IIP) sufficiently. Indigenous cultural artefacts, myths, designs and songs (among other aspects) are often free to be exploited by marketers for business\u27 gain. Use of IIP by marketers is legal as intellectual property protection is based on the lifetime of the person who has put the IP in tangible form. However, Indigenous groups often view ownership in a very different light, seeing aspects of their culture as being owned by the group in perpetuity. Misuse of their cultural heritage by marketers in products often denies the Indigenous group a monetary benefit from their use and is frequently disrespectful. This article discusses ethical insights that might shed moral weight on this issue

Big Data Ethics in Education: Connecting Practices and Ethical Awareness

The purpose of this paper is to discuss big data ethics in education. To achieve this goal, this paper first discusses big data from its origin, and then discusses big data ethics from its philosophical perspectives of cyberethics and the emphasis on privacy issues in using big data in researching and teaching. Cases, policies, and code of conduct regarding big data and privacy are discussed with ethical considerations from data ownership and privacy, as well as instructor and learner responsibilities perspectives. Key privacy preserving data mining techniques are also discussed, and the authors recommend using a hybrid approach to address privacy concerns in educational big data context. This discussion aims to broaden the discussion on cultivating researchers’ ethical awareness in employing and designing future big data research in education, as well as to raising data analyst’ ethical awareness in employing big data in an educational open data context. Future studies in exploring empirical practices to cultivate big data ethics are recommended

Conference on Corporate Governance: Search for the Advanced Practices

The purpose of the article is to examine the role of the board of directors in corporate law in Jordan

Corporate governance : where do Tenth District community banks stand?

Troubles at publicly traded companies have led to the passage of recently enacted laws that add more rigor and formality to the corporate governance process. Most of these reform proposals and new laws focus on protecting investors in publicly traded firms. Relatively few Tenth District community banks, however, are publicly traded or are subject to new laws that would require them to change their corporate governance practices. Indeed, many are small in asset size, family-owned, closely held, and owner-managed. Given these characteristics, the governance process at community banks tends to be less formal and structured than requirements for publicly traded companies. What then has been the impact of corporate governance reform on community banks? Have community banks perceived benefits from the practices recommended by proponents of a more formal governance process? Although not required to do so, have community banks adopted any of the practices required of publicly traded companies? To answer these questions, the analysis in this article used information obtained from 26 governance questions included in the 2004 Tenth District Community Bank Survey. These questions dealt with matters that receive attention by good governance proponents, including board size, composition, committee structure, compensation, succession planning, director assessments, and other governance matters. Because ownership structure and size can influence the governance process, the analysis divided the survey data by family- and non-family-ownership, and within these ownership categories smaller and larger banks (assets less than $150 million, assets greater than$150 million). The conclusions drawn from the analysis are that Tenth District community banks have adopted many principles advocated by strong governance proponents. However, larger and more complex organizations are more likely to have adopted recommended governance principles. Further, non-family-owned organizations, regardless of size, proportionately engage in more of recommended practices than do family-owned organizations.Corporate governance ; Federal Reserve District, 10th ; Community banks ; Bank directors ; Bank management