Limehouse couple take their fight to keep their pet dog at their penthouse apartment to the High Court
PUBLISHED: 17:40 25 January 2018 | UPDATED: 17:50 25 January 2018
Smartpicsuk. Free editorial use in connection with court case
A couple who want to keep their “lovely” pet dog Vinnie in their penthouse apartment in Limehouse have taken their fight to the High Court.
Gabby and Florian Kuehn were banned from keeping their Maltese Yorkshire terrier cross at their flat after they moved there in 2015.
The Victory Place management company, which represents residents in the gated 146-flat complex, said there was a no-pets policy as part of the lease, except in special circumstances.
Despite the couple arguing there was a “therapeutic benefit” gained from living with Vinnie, the company’s board of directors refused to let him live on the premises.
The couple challenged that decision at the Mayor’s & City of London Court, but lost their case in February last year.
Judge Donald Cryan ruled the couple’s case “comes down to ‘I love my dog”’, but said that did not mean they should be given permission for him to live in the flat.
Mrs Kuehn, 46, a recruitment consultant, and her 43-year-old banker husband appealed against that ruling at the High Court in London today.
Their lawyers argued the board had “pre-determined” their decision to refuse the couple permission to keep Vinnie and the decision-making process was therefore unfair.
David Phillips QC, for the Kuehns, said it was clear the board had discussed the matter and made up their minds before meeting with the couple.
But Christopher Heather QC, for the management company, said the board was entitled to take account of a vote by 75 residents in support of the policy on pets - with only the Kuehns voting against.
He also said the couple had been asked to produce some medical evidence to support their claim about their pet’s therapeutic benefit, but they had not.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, hearing the case, said there were “strong views on both sides” and he was “surprised” Vinnie was not in court.
He added: “It is a very simple case.
“I know it’s about a lovely dog called Vinnie and that can be taken into account.”
The judge reserved his ruling on the case until a later date.