Chief Executive, Office of Local Government v Cornish [2018] NSWCATOD 110

Chief Executive, Office of Local Government v Cornish [2018] NSWCATOD 110

The Tribunal has jurisdiction as the matter was validly referred under s 440J and the requirements of the Local Government Act were followed. The respondent, as a councillor, failed to comply with lawful Council resolutions requiring actions following a code of conduct breach, and this non-compliance constitutes misconduct under cl 8.10 of the Council's Code and s 440F of the Act. Guided by precedents and the respondent's lack of remorse or action, but noting this was a single proven incident, the appropriate disciplinary order is suspension of the respondent's right to payment for three months, rather than suspension from office.

Parties
Applicant: Chief Executive, Office of Local Government; Respondent: Marcus Cornish
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Misconduct Proceedings (tribunal Application) / Final Decision and Order After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application succeeded in part; disciplinary order made against respondent
Legal Topics
Breach of Council Code of Conduct, Misconduct by Councillor, Disciplinary Powers of NCAT
Local Government Law Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Breach of Council Code of Conduct Misconduct by Councillor Disciplinary Powers of NCAT

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Executive, Office of Local Government

Applicant

Marcus Cornish

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Misconduct Proceedings (tribunal Application) / Final Decision and Order After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the application or should the application be dismissed under s 55 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013?
  2. 2 Did the respondent's failure to comply with Council resolutions constitute misconduct under cl 8.10 of the Code and s 440F of the Local Government Act 1993?
  3. 3 What disciplinary action, if any, is appropriate given the conduct found?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has jurisdiction as the matter was validly referred under s 440J and the requirements of the Local Government Act were followed. The respondent, as a councillor, failed to comply with lawful Council resolutions requiring actions following a code of conduct breach, and this non-compliance constitutes misconduct under cl 8.10 of the Council's Code and s 440F of the Act. Guided by precedents and the respondent's lack of remorse or action, but noting this was a single proven incident, the appropriate disciplinary order is suspension of the respondent's right to payment for three months, rather than suspension from office.

Court Disposition

Application succeeded in part; disciplinary order made against respondent

Orders

  • The respondent's right to payment is suspended for a period of three months from the date of these reasons.