Jarvis v Queanbeyan City Council - [2001] NSWLEC 100

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION: Jarvis v Queanbeyan City Council [2001] NSWLEC 100

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Susan Denise Jarvis
RESPONDENT
Queanbeyan City Council

FILE NUMBER(S): 40030 of 2001

CORAM: Sheahan J

KEY ISSUES: Local Government :- confidentiality of council documents - disclosure - Code of Conduct - suspension of Councillor - expulsion from meetings

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (Meetings) Regulation 1999 cl 29 to 31

CASES CITED: Hospital Action Group Association Inc v Hastings Municipal Council (1993) 80 LGERA 190;
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24;
Ryde City Council v Echt & Anor [2000] NSWCA 108;
Schroders Australia Property Management Ltd v Shoalhaven City Council & Anor (1999) 110 LGERA 130;
Styles v Wollondilly Shire Council [2001] NSWLEC 18

DATES OF HEARING: 21/05/2001-22/05/2001

DATE OF JUDGMENT:
05/31/2001

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:
APPLICANT
Barrister
Mr D Wilson
Solicitors
Johnson & Sendall
RESPONDENT
Barristers
Mr P Hastings QC with
Mr J Robson
Solicitors
Baker Deanne & Nutt

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No: 40030 of 2001
ENVIRONMENT COURT Coram: Sheahan J
OF NEW SOUTH WALES 31 May 2001

SUSAN DENISE JARVIS

Applicant

QUEANBEYAN CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant (Jarvis) is a Councillor of the respondent Council, having been elected first in September 1995 and again in September 1999.

2. These class 4 proceedings were commenced by her on 1 March 2001, and concern, primarily, Council meetings on and between 17 January and 14 March 2001.

3. The expedited hearing proceeded on the basis of an amended class 4 application filed 21 May 2001, and Points of Claim and Defence filed during the hearing.

4. Jarvis seeks 4 declarations, but no specific consequential relief, other than such “further or other Order as the nature of the case requires”, and “Costs”.

5. Council meets twice monthly. The meetings are tape-recorded and those tapes are sometimes transcribed. Minutes of each meeting are prepared, put to the next meeting for adoption, and made public. Most of Council’s business is conducted in open meetings.

6. As is common in cases like this there is a lot of history, of varying degrees of relevance, not all of which, nor necessarily the most relevant of which, is made known to the court. On this occasion I have before me, from the applicant:

· two large folders of material (Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2), exhibited to her affidavit;

· full sets of the minutes of Council meetings held on 1 November 2000 (Exhibit A3), 15 November 2000 (Exhibit A5), 17 January 2001 (Exhibit A4), and 7 February 2001 (Exhibit A6); and

· partial transcript of part of the meeting 15 November 2000 (Exhibit A7).

7. From the Respondent, I have a substantial affidavit from the Council’s in-house solicitor (Murphy), dated 16 May 2001, plus partial transcripts of Council meetings 17 January 2001 (Annexure ‘N’ to his…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jarvis v Queanbeyan City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] NSWLEC 100
Decision Date: 05/31/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jarvis, a Councillor of the Queanbeyan City Council, sought declarations that certain decisions of the Council were invalid and unlawful. She also sought a declaration that her disclosure of certain documents was not in breach of the Council's Code of Conduct. The Council, represented by its in-house solicitor, Murphy, resisted the proceedings. The court found that the disclosure by Jarvis of the contents of the 1 November 2000 letter from Murphy to at least one member of the public was in breach of the Code of Conduct, and therefore unlawful. The court also found that the Council's resolution that Jarvis had breached the Code of Conduct was open to the Council and reasonably drawn. Jarvis' non-compliance with the resolution constituted an act of disorder, and the Council's expulsion of Jarvis from meetings was lawful. The court dismissed Jarvis' application and ordered her to pay the Council's costs on a party-party basis.

Orders