Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal - [2024] QCAT 175

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal & Anor [2024] QCAT 175

PARTIES:

MARGARET FAY STRELOW

(applicant)

v

COUNCILLOR CONDUCT TRIBUNAL
INDEPENDENT ASSESSOR

(respondents)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR061-21

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2024

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Judicial Member Rinaudo AM
Member Gordon

ORDERS:

1.     The decision made by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 2 July 2020 that Margaret Fay Strelow engaged in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017 is set aside.

2.     The penalty imposed by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 9 November 2020 is set aside.

3.     The decision is substituted that Margaret Fay Strelow did not engage in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT – REGULATION AND ADMINISTRATION – COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS – RIGHTS, DUTIES AND INCIDENTS OF OFFICE – DISQUALIFICATION FROM VOTING – STATUTORY DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS – where the Mayor of Rockhampton was part of an official trade delegation to India and received hospitality at that time paid for by the Adani Group – where the Independent Assessor complained to the Councillor Conduct Tribunal that the Mayor should have entered the hospitality received on the register of interests – the meaning of ‘interest’, ‘financial interest’, ‘non-financial interest’ and ‘conflict with duties’ in schedule 5, section 7 of the relevant provision – whether the Mayor had engaged in misconduct by failing to enter the hospitality in the register of interests under that provision

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 7, s 14, s 14A, s 14B, s 35C

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld), s 4, s 12, s 171B, s 172, s 173, s 176
Local Government Regulation 2012, s 291, schedule 5 s 17

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20

Case (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 12

CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 268 CLR 76
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Independent Assessor v Heath CCT F19/6510 6 February 2020
Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70

Sloane v Sambell [1931] VLR 393

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Lynette Galvin, solicitor, of Journey Family Lawyers

Respondent:

Camille Conaghan, lawyer

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a review of a decision made by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal (CCT) that Margaret Strelow, then the Mayor of Rockhampton, had engaged in misconduct by failing to enter on the register of interests certain hospitality benefits received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017.
The CCT made its decision in July 2020. Our hearing of the review was nearly four years later, and seven years after the alleged misconduct. We have decided that Ms Strelow was not required to enter the Adani hospitality…

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 Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal 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: [2024] QCAT 175
Decision Date: 30 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Strelow v Councillor Conduct Tribunal concerned the conduct of Margaret Fay Strelow, the Mayor of Rockhampton, in relation to her failure to record hospitality received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017. The Independent Assessor alleged that Strelow had failed to enter this hospitality on her register of interests, as required by law, and this was subsequently found to be misconduct by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal. Strelow sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision and penalty in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues were the interpretation of the terms ‘interest’, ‘financial interest’, ‘non-financial interest’ and ‘conflict with duties’ within the context of the statutory disclosure obligations under section 7 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Act. The court had to determine whether the hospitality received by Strelow constituted an interest that should have been recorded in her register of interests. Additionally, the court examined whether the Tribunal had erred in concluding that Strelow’s failure to record the hospitality constituted misconduct.

In its reasoning, the court found that the term ‘interest’ under the Act was not intended to capture every conceivable form of benefit or favour. The court held that the hospitality received by Strelow, while a benefit, did not constitute a registrable interest under the statutory provisions. The court also determined that the Tribunal had misapplied the legislative criteria in concluding that Strelow’s conduct amounted to misconduct. As a result, the court set aside the Tribunal’s decision and penalty, and substituted its own decision that Strelow had not engaged in misconduct by failing to record the hospitality in her register of interests.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision and penalty imposed by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal, and to substitute a decision that Margaret Fay Strelow did not engage in misconduct by failing to record the hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during the trade delegation to India in March 2017.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision made by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 2 July 2020 that Margaret Fay Strelow engaged in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017 is set aside.

2. The penalty imposed by the Councillor Conduct Tribunal on 9 November 2020 is set aside.

3. The decision is substituted that Margaret Fay Strelow did not engage in misconduct by failing to record on the register of interests hospitality benefit received from the Adani Group during a trade delegation to India in March 2017.

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.