A Supreme Court judge has questioned the laws that allow people to be exposed to aggressive dogs in public areas after a man was mauled as he walked home.

Daniel Meyers lost part of his hand when he was savagely attacked by two pitbull terriers at the Spence public housing complex in Canberra on March 15, 2016.

In a decision handed down on Monday, Justice David Mossop said the laws that allow people 'to be put at risk by aggressive dogs' should be reviewed, The Canberra Times reported.

Daniel Meyers lost part of his hand when he was savagely attacked by two pitbull terriers at the Spence public housing complex in Canberra on March 15, 2016

'In an urban community where crime rates are low, there is no reason why citizens need dogs that are of such a temperament as to represent a threat to the lives of other citizens,' he said.

Mr Meyer was allegedly walking home when the incident took place, which resulted in him losing a finger, part of his hand and tricep, and suffering nerve damage.

He then commenced legal action against the commissioner for social housing for a breach of his lease and negligence.

As part of his complaint, Meyer claimed the territory had failed in their 'duty of care' under the Domestic Animals Act to protect him from aggressive animals.

During the eight-day trial, the court heard that Housing ACT was aware of the dogs presence at the complex, dating back to 2015, but didn't have them removed.

The court heard that Housing ACT could have ordered the two pitbulls to be removed but didn't because they believed they were unable to take action until Department of Animal Services intervened.

Mr Meyer's barrister, John Purnell argued that Housing ACT was in a position to remove the animals but didn't as a result of incorrect advice.

He said that following Mr Meyer's attack it had been, 'abundantly clear that safety for the tenants of the complex and visitors to the complex was a burning issue that must be addressed by the territory'.

It's believed Housing ACT also received a complaint about the dogs in December 2015 and requested their removal before another man was attacked in January 2016.

Despite Mr Meyer's claims, Justice Mossop found that neither the ACT Commissioner for Social Housing, nor the territory, was in breach of any duty of care.

'The plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary causal link between any breach of duty on the part of the Commissioner and the injuries that he suffered,' the judge wrote.

But despite the case dismissal, Justice Mossop added it unacceptable for someone to be savagely attacked by an animal while going about their daily business.

'In this case, the plaintiff suffered a severe attack to his hands and shoulder, and lost a finger. He was very lucky not to be killed,' he said.