Tuffy v Vaughan

[2009] NSWADT 316

CITATION:

Tuffy v Vaughan & ors [2009] NSWADT 316

DIVISION:

General Division

PARTIES:

Applicant:
Michael Tuffy

First Respondent:
Leigh Vaughan

Second Respondent:
John Weate

Third Respondent:
Linda Gill

FILE NUMBER:

083287

HEARING DATES:

27, 28 29 April 2009

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:

29 April 2009

EXTEMPORE DECISION DATE:

29 April 2009

 
DATE OF DECISION: 

29 April 2009

BEFORE:

Britton A - Deputy President; Higgins S - Judicial Member; Antonios Z - Non-Judicial Member

LEGISLATION CITED:

Local Government Act 1993
Local Government (General) Regulation 2005
Telecommunication Act 1997 (Cth)
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918(Cth)

CASES CITED:

R v Gray; Ex Parte Marsh (1985) CLR 351
Roberts v Jeffrey & Ors (2003) NSWSC 162
Bourne v Murphy (1992) LGERA 329

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant Representative:
G Wells, agent

First & Second Respondent Representative:
J Vaughan, solicitor

Third Respondent Representative:
In person

ORDERS:

The application in respect of Mr Weate, Ms Vaughan and Ms Gill is dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The brief reasons for our decision are these. On 31 October 2008, Michael Tuffy, the applicant in these proceedings applied to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal under s 329 of the Local Government Act1993, (the Act), for orders that fellow councillors, Leigh Vaughan and John Weate, respectively the first and second respondents, be dismissed from office.

2 In December 2008, at the request of Mr Tuffy, Ms Linda Gill, the third respondent in these proceedings, was joined as a party. Mr Tuffy also seeks Ms Gill’s dismissal.

3 The factual background to this application can be briefly stated. On 13 September 2008, an election was conducted for Great Lakes Council. Forty-four candidates stood for nine positions. All respondents and the applicant were elected to office. Mr Weate and Ms Vaughan stood as Labor candidates; Ms Gill stood as an independent.

4 This morning Ms Higgins read onto transcript the documents that were admitted into these proceedings. All have been taken into account in our decision as have the written submissions made by the parties. We note that voluminous material has been provided to the Tribunal and a wide range of issues have been canvassed, many irrelevant to the decision that we are called upon to make. In these reasons we have decided not to address those issues which are not relevant to our determination.

5 One of the issues in these proceedings was the nature of the purported irregularities on which the applicant relied. The Tribunal, with the assistance of the parties, sought to refine the scope of those alleged irregularities, this being considered necessary given their number, scope and lack of clarity.

6 It is agreed with Dr Wells, who represents Mr Tuffy in these proceedings that the following constitute the alleged irregularities for the purpose of our determination. (In these reasons ‘the Regulation’ is a reference to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. It is common ground that these regulations and the Act governed the conduct of the subject elections.)

7 In respect of Ms Vaughan, the allegations are these:

First, that in…