A man who battled for six months to save his three beloved Pitbulls from being put down is claiming victory after a judge ordered the Department of Environmental Protection to return the dogs immediately.

Vic Ball's Pitbulls Judah, Ginger and Onyx were removed from his property on December 5 last year after Government dog wardens determined the trio killed a cat and then turned on each other in a violent frenzy.

Their impounding followed five similar complaints made against the dogs by Mr. Ball's neighbours in Warwick.

Speaking to , Mr. Ball claimed that at a private hearing in chambers last week, Chief Justice Richard Ground ruled both the seizure of the dogs and the order to have them destroyed illegal, given that Mr. Ball was not present at the house when they were removed or at the subsequent court hearing when the destruction order was made.

But this claim has been hotly disputed by the Department of Environmental Protection, who said Mr. Ground did not rule the dogs had been improperly seized but that the Emergency Order under which they were taken had expired ? a "legal technicality" according to the Department.

Independent investigation by has confirmed the Department's version of events to be fair and accurate.

Mr. Ball continued to insist, however, that the Department had "absolutely no right" to take the dogs without him being present, while suggesting the court order to have the Pitbulls put down was "biased" as he was not there "to give his side of the story".

Meanwhile, a spokesman from the Department said the Chief Justice's decision was the result of a "unfortunate misunderstanding".

The spokesman claimed the Department had wrongly understood that the Emergency Order had been extended at a hearing for a Stay on December 20 last year ? although the Order actually expired mid-way through Mr. Ball's appeal against the seizures. Mr. Ground also reportedly argued that Mr. Ball should have been given a copy of the Emergency Order at an earlier stage and not three days after the seizure as was the case.

The spokesman further maintained that the wardens had acted properly in the circumstances and in the best interests of the general public.

"One should gather from the facts of the hearing that the dogs were ordered released because of legal technicalities," the spokesman continued.

"There is no need for us to review procedures regarding the seizure of animals, but valuable lessons have been learned.

"It is important to state that the actions taken by our dog wardens followed several complaints by area residents. This was the sixth complaint ? previous complaints included a cat killing and a biting incident. It was obvious at the time that arrangements for restraining the dogs were woefully inadequate. Mr. Ball has since moved to a new residence."

It is not yet clear how the Department are now going to proceed, however, with Head Animal Warden Geoffrey Benevides not returning phone calls.