Darley v City of Parramatta Council

The case of Darley v City of Parramatta Council involved a challenge to the decisions of the City of Parramatta Council regarding the conduct of a councillor. The applicant, Darley, sought judicial review of various decisions made by the Council, including the conduct review and investigator's findings, the complaints co-ordinator's actions, and the general manager's compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW). The central issues revolved around whether the conduct reviewer and investigator followed the Council’s Code of Conduct and applicable administrative procedures, whether the complaints co-ordinator acted contrary to these documents, and if the general manager adhered to statutory requirements. Additionally, the adequacy of the reasons provided in the reviewers' reports and the alleged failure of the conduct reviewer to consider submissions were examined. The applicant also contended that the complaints co-ordinator exceeded their authority and that the Council breached the Hardiman principle by acting as an active contradictor in the proceedings.

The court assessed the validity of the Council's decisions, focusing on whether procedural fairness was observed and if the applicant was provided with all relevant information. The construction of the Local Government Act, the Council's Code of Conduct, and the administrative procedures was scrutinised to determine if the Council's actions were in accordance with these legal instruments. The court considered whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias in the conduct reviewer's decision and if the complaints co-ordinator's actions were justified. Furthermore, the court examined whether the reasons provided in the conduct reviewer's report were adequate and if the conduct reviewer had properly considered the submissions made by the applicant. The court also evaluated whether the general manager fulfilled the statutory requirements and if the Council's actions breached the Hardiman principle.

In its decision, the court found that several procedural errors were committed by the Council, leading to an unfair process for the applicant. The conduct reviewer and investigator did not adhere to the Code of Conduct and administrative procedures, and the complaints co-ordinator acted contrary to these documents. The court held that the reasons provided in the conduct reviewer's report were inadequate and that the conduct reviewer failed to consider the applicant's submissions. The general manager was found to have complied with the statutory requirements. Additionally, the court determined that the Council breached the Hardiman principle by acting as an active contradictor in the proceedings. Consequently, the court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, ensuring that procedural fairness was observed and all relevant information was provided to the applicant. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and procedural fairness in administrative decisions involving local government.