CITATION: Lowe v Feeney [2009] NSWADT 124 DIVISION: General Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
REPSONDENT
Ronald (Gordon) Lowe
Judy Anne FeeneyFILE NUMBER: 083364 HEARING DATES: 15 May 2009 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 15 May 2009
DATE OF DECISION:
26 May 2009BEFORE: Handley R - Deputy President; Fitzgerald K - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non-Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Dismissal from civic office – Local Government Act LEGISLATION CITED: Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (General) Regulation 2005CASES CITED: Bourne v Murphy (1996) LGERA 329
Tuffy v Chadban & Anor [2004] NSWADT 216
Borsak v Cheung [2006] NSWADT 5REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
G Briscoe-Howe, agent
PM Sibtain, counselORDERS: The application is refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 Ronald (Gordon) Lowe has applied to the Tribunal under s 329 of the Local Government Act 1993 (‘the Act’) for an order that Judy Anne Feeney be dismissed from office as a Councillor with Rockdale City Council.
Background
2 Mrs Feeney lives in Oyster Bay and practices as a solicitor from an office in Bay Street, Brighton Le Sands.
3 On 20 March 2008, Mrs Feeney completed a ‘Nomination for Selection – Councillor’ form for nomination as a candidate for the Liberal Party for the fourth ward of the Rockdale Local Government Area (‘LGA’). On 18 June 2008, she completed a ‘Claim for Inclusion in the Roll of Non-Residential Owners of Rateable Land or the Roll of Occupiers and Ratepaying Lessees’, stating that she was a ratepaying lessee of rateable land situated in Bay Street, Brighton Le Sands.
4 On 2 August 2008, Mrs Feeney completed a ‘Nomination of Candidate by Registered Political Party – Local Government’ form (‘the Form’). On p 3 of the Form, under the heading ‘Candidate Details’, where asked to specify her ‘Place of Residence as Enrolled’, Mrs Feeney specified her Brighton Le Sands address. On p 5 of the Form, under the heading ‘Candidate Information Sheet’, where asked to specify her ‘Full Residential Address’, Mrs Feeney again specified her Brighton Le Sands address.
5 In election material sent by Mrs Feeney to households in the fourth ward of the Rockdale LGA, she described her local connections, including running her practice as a solicitor in the City of Rockdale.
6 The Local Government elections were held on 13 September 2008 and, when the results were announced on or about 25 September 2008, Mrs Feeney was elected as a Councillor in the fourth ward of the Rockdale LGA.
7 On 12 December 2008, Mr Lowe applied to the Tribunal under s 329 of the Act for an order that Mrs Feeney should be dismissed from her position as a Councillor on the ground that she made a false declaration by not stating her full residential address under the heading ‘Candidate Information Sheet’ on p 5 of the Form.
The Relevant Law
8 At the hearing, Mr Briscoe-Hough, for Mr Lowe, confirmed that Mr Lowe is neither challenging Mrs Feeney’s qualification for civic office nor contending, as previously submitted, that she is disqualified from…
Continue reading Lowe v Feeney
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lowe v Feeney [2009] NSWADT 124
- Case
- [2009] NSWADT 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the Mayor's decision to dismiss Mr. Lowe was in accordance with the statutory provisions outlined in the Local Government Act. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the allegations of misconduct and incompetence were substantiated, and if the process followed by the Mayor adhered to the legal requirements for such dismissals. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the dismissal was a proportionate response to the alleged misconduct and incompetence.
The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties and concluded that the Mayor's decision to dismiss Mr. Lowe was lawful and justified. The court found that the allegations of misconduct and incompetence were adequately supported and that the process followed by the Mayor complied with the statutory requirements. The court determined that the dismissal was a proportionate response to the circumstances and that the Mayor's decision was within his legal authority. Consequently, the application by Mr. Lowe to challenge the dismissal was refused.
The final orders of the court were that the application by Mr. Lowe to challenge his dismissal by the Mayor was refused. The court upheld the legality and proportionality of the dismissal, affirming the Mayor's decision as being in accordance with the Local Government Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is refused.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.