COUNCILLOR ALEXANDER LEW	Plaintiff
v
YEHUDI BLACHER (in his capacity as an arbiter appointed pursuant to s 142 of the Local Government Act 2020 (Vic))	First defendant
COUNCILLOR POLLY MORGAN	Second defendant

---
JUDGMENT

JUDGE:	Gray J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 October 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lew v Blacher
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 604

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – Internal arbitration of application alleging misconduct by a Councillor – Review of decision of arbiter – Finding of misconduct –Prescribed standards of conduct of Councillors – Social media post on Councillor’s private account relating to matters for decision by Council – Whether in performance of the role of a Councillor – Local Government Act 2020, ss 28, 139, 143, 145, 147 – Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020, reg 12, sch 1 – Confidentiality of information provided to arbiter other than findings and reasons of arbiter – Disclosure in court of material subject to confidentiality – Open Courts Act 2013, s 20 – Confidentiality and inspection of court file – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 28.05(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	R Walsh	Kingston Reid
For the First Defendant	A Solomon-Bridge	VGSO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Legislative scheme relating to Councillor conduct..................................................................... 2

Avenue for dealing with ‘misconduct’ allegations.................................................................. 4
Avenues for dealing with ‘serious misconduct’ and ‘gross misconduct’ allegations......... 6

Legislative history and extrinsic material..................................................................................... 7

Relevant background and facts..................................................................................................... 12

The standards of conduct........................................................................................................... 12
City of Stonnington’s Councillor Code of Conduct............................................................... 14
Subject matter of application to arbiter.................................................................................... 15
Arbiter’s decision........................................................................................................................ 17

Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 19

Nature of the judicial review proceeding and issues for determination............................ 19
General principles....................................................................................................................... 21
The statutory construction issues............................................................................................. 22
Overview of parties’ competing constructions of ‘role of a Councillor’................... 22
Is s 28(1) exhaustive?......................................................................................................... 24
Competing interpretations of the scope of ss 28(1)(a) and (b).................................... 27
Further or alternative argument supporting broad interpretation of ss 28(1)(a) and (b) 32
Is the phrase, ‘role of a Councillor’ in the standards of conduct defined by s 28(1) of the Act?.................................................................................................................................. 33
Coherent operation to give effect to harmonious goals............................................... 34
Related provisions............................................................................................................. 35

Conclusion on the construction of ‘the role of a Councillor’................................................ 37
Significance of Stonnington Code section 7.2 to the outcome of this case......................... 38
Conclusions on the grounds of judicial review...................................................................... 39

Confidentiality issues and admission of evidence................................................................... 44

Admissibility issues.................................................................................................................... 44
Confidentiality issues................................................................................................................. 45

Open Courts Act issues.................................................................................................................... 47

Orders................................................................................................................................................. 51

Annexure A....................................................................................................................................... 52

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

This is an application for judicial review[1] of a decision of an arbiter under pt 6 div 5 of the Local Government Act 2020 (Act).[2]
[1]Pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Rules).
[2]These reasons for judgment adopt…

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.

Continue reading Lew v Blacher

Details

AGLC: Lew v Blacher [2023] VSC 604
Case: [2023] VSC 604
Decision Date: 13 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lew v Blacher, the plaintiff sought judicial review of an internal arbitration decision regarding an allegation of misconduct by a Councillor. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The core dispute involved the interpretation and application of local government laws and regulations to the actions of a Councillor, specifically whether a social media post on the Councillor’s private account concerning a matter pending before the Council constituted misconduct under the Local Government Act 2020 and associated regulations.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the Councillor’s social media post fell within the scope of their role and thus constituted misconduct, and whether the court could consider confidential material disclosed in the arbitration process. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of confidentiality and the permissible scope of inspection of the court file in the context of the Open Courts Act 2013 and Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015.

The court found that the Councillor’s social media post did indeed relate to a matter for decision by the Council, thus qualifying as part of the Councillor’s role. Consequently, it constituted misconduct under the prescribed standards. Regarding the confidentiality of the material presented to the arbiter, the court held that while the arbiter’s findings and reasons were not subject to confidentiality, the broader information could be disclosed in court. However, the court exercised its discretion to limit the scope of inspection of the court file to ensure that sensitive information was not improperly disclosed, in line with the principles of open justice and the applicable legal framework.

Orders