Couple defending their 14 barking dogs stunned the judge with a dismissive two-word answer — and it cost them nearly $10,000 fine

In defense of their 14 barking dogs, a couple stunned the judge with a dismissive two-word reply. What they didn’t realize in that moment was that their careless response would end up costing them nearly $10,000 in fines. Stephen and Layla McGuigan, from Eastham, Wirral, were found guilty of breaching a noise-abatement notice after their dogs caused a persistent disturbance in the neighborhood. Their attitude toward the situation was evident during a court hearing on December 10, 2025, leading to a significant financial penalty.

As reported by ECHO on Saturday, December 13, 2025, the case was brought to light by the local authority after several complaints were filed by neighbors about the ongoing barking noise coming from the McGuigans’ property. The local authority pursued the case using evidence from Wirral Council technical officer Paul Bratley, recordings from a device in one home, and testimonies from neighbors who attested to the constant disturbances. Two of the neighbors, Barry Heayns and Annette Owen, provided clear evidence that the noise from the dogs was not just excessive but was affecting their quality of life.

One of the key points raised during the trial was that the McGuigans had not effectively addressed the issue, despite multiple complaints. The defense argued that other dogs in the area were also barking, but the judge sided with the council and neighbors, ruling that the McGuigans had not done enough to control the situation. Stephen McGuigan argued that the neighbors allegedly used noisy tactics, like banging pots and blowing whistles, to agitate the dogs. He also mentioned they allegedly planned to move to a rented farmhouse because of the ongoing problems.

In a moment that stunned the court, Stephen McGuigan was asked why he had so many dogs. His response, “Why not?” was seen as dismissive and telling of his attitude toward the concerns raised by his neighbors. District Judge Paul Healey remarked that this answer “was an indication of his attitude to the impact on others.” He continued, saying, “I feel he was somewhat defensive and dismissive when questioned.” The judge also described the couple’s response as “a deliberate and flagrant disregard” for the council’s notice. He explained that the couple’s failure to reflect on the noise’s impact was clear. The judge also acknowledged that when people live close to one another, it is inevitable that noise from one household can affect others. "I think what is considerable is they really can’t escape from it."

In the final ruling, the McGuigans were fined approximately $400 for each of the four charges, a $645 victim surcharge, and $2,690 in costs to the council, bringing the total fine to roughly $9,900. The judge stated, “In my view, the situation very much remains the same. There were a very large number of dogs at the property when the notice was issued, and there were a large number of dogs at the property at the dates of the alleged issues." He emphasized that the number of dogs kept by the McGuigans was “exceptional” and that they had not taken effective steps to control the noise.