Office of Local Government v Salim Mehajer [2016] NSWCATOD 10 | Case summary

Office of Local Government v Salim Mehajer [2016] NSWCATOD 10 | Case summary | Zoe

The sections of the Act to which I have referred are contained in Chapter 14. Part of that Chapter contains provisions relevant to the disclosure of pecuniary interests: 442 What is a "pecuniary interest"? (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person. (2) A person does not have a pecuniary interest in a matter if the interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence any decision the person might make in relation to the matter or if the interest is of a kind specified in section 448. 443 Who has a pecuniary interest? (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a person has a pecuniary interest in a matter if the pecuniary interest is the interest of: (a) the person, or (b) the person's spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person, or a partner or employer of the person, or (c) a company or other body of which the person, or a nominee, partner or employer of the person, is a member. Note. "De facto partner" is defined in section 21C of the Interpretation Act 1987. (2) (Repealed) (3) However, a person is not taken to have a pecuniary interest in a matter as referred to in subsection (1) (b) or (c): (a) if the person is unaware of the relevant pecuniary interest of the spouse, de facto partner, relative, partner, employer or company or other body, or (b) just because the person is a member of, or is employed by, a council or a statutory body or is employed by the Crown, or (c) just because the person is a member of, or a delegate of a council to, a company or other body that has a pecuniary interest in the matter, so long as the person has no beneficial interest in any shares of the company or body. 444 What disclosures must be made by a councillor? A councillor: (a) must prepare and submit written returns of interests in accordance with section 449, and (b) must disclose pecuniary interests in accordance with section 451 448 What interests do not have to be disclosed? The following interests do not have to be disclosed for the purposes of this Part: (a) an interest as an elector, (b) an interest as a ratepayer or person liable to pay a charge, … (g) an interest in a proposal relating to the making, amending, altering or repeal of an environmental planning instrument other than an instrument that effects a change of the permissible uses of: (i) land in which the person or a person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) has a proprietary interest (which, for the purposes of this paragraph, includes any entitlement to the land at law or in equity and any other interest or potential interest in the land arising out of any mortgage, lease, trust, option or contract, or otherwise), or (ii) land adjoining, adjacent to or in proximity to land referred to in subparagraph (i),if the person or the person, company or body referred to in section 443 (1) (b) or (c) would by reason of the proprietary interest have a pecuniary interest in the proposal, (h) an interest relating to a contract, proposed contract or other matter if the interest arises only because of a beneficial interest in shares in a company that does not exceed 10 per cent of the voting rights in the company,… 449 Returns disclosing interests of councillors and designated persons (1) A councillor or designated person must complete and lodge with the general manager, within 3 months after becoming a councillor or designated person, a return in the form prescribed by the regulations. (1A) A person must not lodge a return that the person knows or ought reasonably to know is false or misleading in a material particular. (2) A person need not lodge a return within the 3-month period after becoming a councillor or designated person if the person lodged a return in that year or the previous year or if the person ceases to be a councillor or designated person within the 3-month period. (3) A councillor or designated person holding that position at 30 June in any year must complete and lodge with the general manager within 3 months after that date a return in the form prescribed by the regulations. (4) A person need not lodge a return within the 3-month period after 30 June in a year if the person lodged a return under subsection (1) within 3 months of 30 June in that year. (5) Nothing in this section prevents a councillor or designated person from lodging more than one return in any year. (6) Nothing in this section or the regulations requires a person to disclose in a return lodged under this section an interest of the person's spouse or de facto partner or a relative of the person. 451 Disclosure and presence in meetings (1) A councillor or a member of a council committee who has a pecuniary interest in any matter with which the council is concerned and who is present at a meeting of the council or committee at which the matter is being considered must disclose the nature of the interest to the meeting as soon as practicable. (2) The councillor or member must not be present at, or in sight of, the meeting of the council or committee: (a) at any time during which the matter is being considered or discussed by the council or committee, or (b) at any time during which the council or committee is voting on any question in relation to the matter. (3) For the removal of doubt, a councillor or a member of a council committee is not prevented by this section from being present at and taking part in a meeting at which a matter is being considered, or from voting on the matter, merely because the councillor or member has an interest in the matter of a kind referred to in section 448. (4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a councillor who has a pecuniary interest in a matter that is being considered at a meeting, if: (a) the matter is a proposal relating to: (i) the making of a principal environmental planning instrument applying to the whole or a significant part of the council's area, or (ii) the amendment, alteration or repeal of an environmental planning instrument where the amendment, alteration or repeal applies to the whole or a significant part of the council's area, and (a1) the pecuniary interest arises only because of an interest of the councillor in the councillor's principal place of residence or an interest of another person (whose interests are relevant under section 443) in that person's principal place of residence, and (b) the councillor made a special disclosure under this section in relation to the interest before the commencement of the meeting. (5) The special disclosure of the pecuniary interest must, as soon as practicable after the disclosure is made, be laid on the table at a meeting of the council and must: (a) be in the form prescribed by the regulations, and (b) contain the information required by the regulations. Note. The code of conduct adopted by a council for the purposes of section 440 may also impose obligations on councillors, members of staff of councils and delegates of councils. 453 Disclosures to be recorded A disclosure made at a meeting of a council or council committee must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. 454 General disclosure A general notice given to the general manager in writing by a councillor or a member of a council committee to the effect that the councillor or member, or the councillor's or member's spouse, de facto partner or relative, is: (a) a member, or in the employment, of a specified company or other body, or (b) a partner, or in the employment, of a specified person, is, unless and until the notice is withdrawn, sufficient disclosure of the councillor's or member's interest in a matter relating to the specified company, body or person that may be the subject of consideration by the council or council committee after the date of the notice. 457 Circumstances in which secs 451 and 456 are not breached A person does not breach section 451 or 456 if the person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the matter under consideration at the meeting was a matter in which he or she had a pecuniary interest.
Before coming to the matters debated before me at the hearing it is appropriate that I refer to the evidence given in Mr Mehajer's case. That evidence comprised his affidavit sworn 14 October 2015 and testimonials provided by Mr Joe Rifai, Vice-President Australian Community Association. Ms Susan Su and Mr Sargon Moshy.
In his affidavit upon which Ms Mitchelmore did not seek to cross-examine him, Mr Mehajer deposed: 3. As at today's date, I have an interest in the following properties: a) 13-21 John Street Lidcombe; b) 36-38 John Street Lidcombe; c) 40-44 John Street Lidcombe; d) 3 Mary Street Lidcombe ("3 Mary Street"); and e) 1 Ann Street Lidcombe 4. I accept that the factual conclusions set out in the Investigations (sic) Report dated March 2015 are accurate. That is, I acknowledge that I provided special disclosure forms in November 2012 and December 2013 for the purposes of the ordinary meetings of Auburn City Council on 21 November 2012, 4 December 2013 and 11 December 2014, but I neglected to include in those forms reference to the fact that at the time I had a pecuniary interest in 3 Mary Street. 5. Regrettably, at the time of filling out those forms I did not properly understand the nature and requirements of the disclosure. I filled out the forms and attended the relevant meetings on the basis that I was required to disclose only those properties that I planned on redeveloping. I mistakenly thought that for the purposes of my disclosure obligations there was only considered to be a risk of receiving a financial benefit from the matter being discussed at the meetings if I was in fact planning to redevelop in a way which would generate that benefit directly. On that basis, I provided special disclosures relating to a number of properties, but did not include 3 Mary Street on the list of affected pecuniary interests. I did have plans to redevelop the properties that I listed, but I did not have plans to redevelop 3 Mary Street in such a way as to derive any benefit from the Amendment Proposal. 6. The first meeting (November 2012), was within a month of me becoming elected as Councillor. I accept that it was my responsibility to ensure that I was familiar with the code of conduct/guidelines and requirements with respect to disclosure. I acknowledge that I did not properly understand the nature of the disclosures and I accept responsibility for not having made further inquiries to better understand my responsibilities. 7. 3 Mary Street is a commercial building that is subject to a lengthy lease by a government body tenant. I have no existing plans to redevelop this property, nor did I have plans to redevelop it in 2012. 8. I did not consider the impact that the development proposal would have on 3 Mary Street in circumstances where I had no intention to redevelop the property and no intention to gain financially. 9. I sincerely regret not having taken more care in attending to my disclosure requirements. Although I had no intention to redevelop 3 Mary Street, I accept that it was a property that would be affected by the Amendment Proposal. 10. The property at 1 Ann Steet Lidcombe is next door to John Street Lidcombe. I acquired that property in May 2013 and the settlement was on 20 December 2013. 11. I have recently come to understand and appreciate the seriousness of providing deficient disclosures and the consequences that follow. In 2014, I received a reprimand in relation to a complaint by the Office of Local Government about filing deficient financial returns. The current complaint is in relation to returns that occurred in the same time period. Since the proceedings in 2014, am much more dilligne twhen it comes to honouring my disclosure obligations, I now take a much more careful and cautions approach. 12. In June 2014 I was contacted by the Office of Local Government in relation to this investigation.. My communication with the Office of Local Government occurred by email and by telephone. My understanding was that the Office of Local Government were going to provide me with documents to review before attending a meeting. I never received any documents. I accept that I may have misunderstood the arrangements that were being sought to be made by the Office of Local Government. I apologise for any inconvenience that I may have caused to the investigators in conducting their investigation.
Mr Rifai's testimonial included the following paragraphs: "It is my intention to speak on behalf of The Australian Community Association Members of over seven hundred and fifty members. We understand that Salim is facing a court martial for Inadequate disclosures/voting on a matter without declaring and interest. I personally have know Salim for approximately ten years. I have further had the pleasure to work by Salim over the past four years as the Vice President for the Association he established. The non for profit organisation was founded by Salim and till today is growing at a rapid pace. The organisation is one that assists the needs of all races, ages and beliefs. Salim has attracted a lot of members into this organisation; mainly targeting the youth that look up to him. Salim provides lectures on a monthly basis as he attempts to lead by example. I can comfortability (sic) say that I believe in Salim. He is a character that holds a lot of respect within the community due to his honesty and integrity seen through his action over the years, not only as Deputy Mayor, but during his previous years working with the community and keeping his ties firm. I never doubted Salim and till this day, have not come across a such a mature and hones man that fits within his age bracket."
Ms Su included these paragraphs: "Salim asked me to write a character reference letter, but the truth is that I was already planning on doing so before the request. I feel strongly about Salim and about his future, and I want to try to make you feel the same way. Salim is a person of good moral character. Given the recent media attention since his wedding, this truly has been a matter I see has affected him the very most. I have know Salim for approximately twelve years now, and in that time, I have seen him go through challenges in life which has made him what he is today."
Mr Moshy said: "My name is Sargon Moshy and I am a Professional Civil/Structural Engineer working full time for a construction company for over 5 years. My relationship with Mr. Salim Mehajer has been on a social an professional level for over 6 years and continuing. I am aware of Mr. Mehajer's case and understand that he is has been charged with 'Failing to disclose interest under the local government act'. In retrospect, I am confident in saying that these charges are undoubtedly out of Character for Mr Mehajer and after working alongside him in the Construction Industry and Volunteering with him for his Non-for-profit organisation, The Australian Community Association, I can say that the charges astound me. My judgement on Mr Salim Mehajer's professional character is that he is a knowledgeable, careful and concise individual in his approach to work ethic and surely a mistake like the one he has been charged for above had been done in a vague error during his early stages in office. This is something that he no doubt has learnt from and a mistake I envision that won't happen again. In my opinion, Mr Mehajer is a prominent and idealistic figure, held in very high regard by all those around him, including his immediate family. Indeed he has contributed positively to our society, contributions that he no doubt holds in an extremely high regard."
Although to my mind Mr Mehajer's sworn explanation for his failure to include 3 Mary St in a number of returns furnished by him stretches credulity, he was not challenged upon it and I accept it at face value. Likewise, there being no objection to the references tendered, I accept what is stated in them.
Mr Free did not submit that Mr Mehajer's interest in Mehajer Bros Pty Ltd did not constitute a pecuniary interest within sections 442 and 443 of the Act. Plainly it did. Nor am I concerned with his failure to include a reference to 3 Mary Street Auburn in the return lodged with the General Manager on 31 October 2012. The report made no adverse finding about this and in any event the deficiency was remedied on 8 august 2013.
The alleged breaches of the Act with which I am concerned relate only to Mr Mehajer's participation in the meetings of 21 November 2012, 4 December 2013 and 11 December 2013. At the threshold of his submissions is Mr Free's assertion that Mr Mehajer was not at those meetings required to make a special disclosure as the exception in s448(g) is applicable. This contention is based upon the proposition that the instrument which effects an alteration to a floor space ratio while it may be an environment planning instrument is not an instrument "that effects a change of permissible use".
In Mr Free's submission, in order for what he describes as the exception to the exemption to apply there must be a proposal which changes the situation where land has a certain permissible use to a situation where the land has a different permissible use. In his contention the phrase "permissible use" has a technical meaning and involves an alteration in the zoning of land. Zoning involves the tripartite distinction routinely adopted in planning instruments where particular development or use is permitted, permitted with consent or prohibited.
It was Mr Free's contention that the proposals of late 2012 and late 2013 relevant to this case, namely an alteration to floor space ratios, did not effect any change to permissible uses of land which remained as they were before the amendment. Rather the amendment was made pursuant to the provisions of Part 4 of the Auburn LEP 2014, that part being headed "Principal Development Standards".
Mr Free conceded that to uphold his submission I would need to reject the approach of the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal in Director General, Department of Local Government v Virgona (PIT 3/1998) published on 23 April 1999.
Ms Mitchelmore on the other hand, contended that the amendments before the Council did effect a change of permissible use of the land for the purposes of the Local Government Act. She pointed out that the phrase "permissible use" is not defined in the act and should not be given a technical meaning derived from the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. She also relied on the analysis carried out by the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal in Virgona.
At pages 40 and 41, and later 47 cf. of its Reasons the Tribunal (constituted by former Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. K J Holland QC) analysed the meaning of the phrase "a change of the permissible uses of land" where used in Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act. THE TRIBUNAL'S RULING ON THE MEANING OF SECTION 448 As there is no authority on the meaning of the provisions of the Local Government Act here in question the Tribunal must arrive at its own independent view. The written submissions of the parties demonstrate that there is considerable room for debate and the Tribunal is indebted to Mr Whitehouse and Mr Lawler for the care taken in the submissions they have made for the assistance of the Tribunal. Debatable though it is, the Tribunal, after much consideration, has arrived at a firm conclusion as to the proper construction of the legislation. The Tribunal proceeds on the basis, virtually common ground between the parties, that its task is to ascertain the intention of the legislature from the words used, read in their context, giving effect to their ordinary and grammatical meaning and, in case of ambiguity, preferring a construction that, consistently with the language and the context, would promote the purpose of object of the Act. Critical to the present case, in the Tribunal's view, is the principle that the words whose meaning is in issue must be considered in their context. To repeat the already quoted words of Gibbs CJ, in Cooper Brookes which Mahoney J A cited in Mayoh, "Of course no part of a statute can be considered in isolation from its context - the whole must be considered." Giving this principle its proper force in the present case, the Tribunal does not agree that the narrow interpretation propounded by the submissions for Councillor Virgona is correct. It seems to the Tribunal that these submissions, while appearing to embrace the view of Mahoney JA that the words were to be considered in their own context, proceeded to consider their meaning in a very different context, thereby to arrive at what, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is an erroneous conclusion. The warrant put forward for doing so was the reference in the Local Government Act to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 for the meaning of the expression "environmental planning instrument." In the Tribunal's view, the existence of this reference in the Local Government Act is not enough to override the requirement that the meaning of the provisions of section 448 of that Act should be considered in the context of that Act. It is to that context that the Tribunal should first turn. The opening words of sections 442 and 448 use the expression "for the purposes of this Chapter." The Chapter is Chapter 14 headed "Honesty & Disclosure of Interests." It contains an Introduction, in the third paragraph of which, it is stated that the Chapter requires that the pecuniary interests of Councillors, Council delegates and other persons involved in making decisions or giving advice on Council matters be publicly recorded and, more importantly for present purposes, requires Councillors and staff to refrain from taking part in decisions on Council matters in which they have a pecuniary interest. … Returning to the phrase "a change of the permissible uses of land", considered at large the concept of "use" of land, in its ordinary and natural meaning, is not confined to the mere use of the land itself, such as by holding it for a purpose, using the land physically, such as for quarrying, or carrying out works or erecting a building on it. The concept would extend to the use of works or a building already erected on the land. It would extend to alterations or additions to such works or buildings. It would certainly extend to subdivision of the land for a purpose such as the purpose of selling individual lots or retaining part and selling or carrying out works or erecting a building on the remainder. The nature and extent of the liberty at law to do any of these things with, to or on land may affect the value of the land. Restrictions on that liberty capable of affecting value may take many forms, including, conditions to be fulfilled, requirements to be satisfied, consents to be obtained, and procedures to be followed, standards to be met and so on. Restrictions may be absolute in the sense that a thing may be prohibited altogether. In relation to consents, the restrictions may extend beyond the requirement to obtain consent to limits on the power to give consent, the circumstances in which it may be exercised, the requirements to be met and the procedures to be followed by the person seeking the exercise of the power. All these variants on the liberty to use land, treating the use of land in the broad sense already mentioned, may be considered to be included in the concept of permissibility within the ordinary meaning of the word "permissible" and, in the opinion of the Tribunal, when the expression "permissible uses of land" in section 448 is read in the context of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, they should all be taken to be encompassed by that expression. It would be strange reasoning if a change of permissibility as to the use of works or buildings on the land that substantially increased or decreased its value to the person was exempt from disclosure but a change with the same effect that related only to use of the land as distinct from works or buildings on it had to be disclosed when either would be likely to give rise to a conflict between financial interest and public duty. The same may be said of changes of permissibility that related to the subdivision of land, development standards in the use of the land for the purpose of works or buildings, or the obtaining of consents and so on. In the opinion of the Tribunal such an anomaly should not be attributed to Parliament as its intention when the expression "use of land" is amenable to the broad interpretation that avoids the anomaly. It seems to the Tribunal, that for the purposes of Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act, Parliament would have intended the words to have the wide meaning that avoids rather than that narrow meaning advanced by Councillor Virgona that would give rise such an anomaly.
In my respectful opinion that analysis by the Tribunal is correct and should be followed.
In my view the context in which the words "an instrument that effects a change of permissible use of (land)" is critical to the proper interpretation of the phrase. The heading at Chapter 14 is "Honesty and Disclosure of Interests". It could hardly be thought, in the absence of very plain words, that the legislature intended that a Councillor would be exempt from disclosing an interest in property potentially affected to the extent of $1m by a proposal before Council.
In the result I conclude that Councillor Mehajer, on 3 occasions, committed breaches of s451 of the Act.
The breaches were extremely serious as the pecuniary interest was high. In Mr Mehajer's favour I have regard however, to the statements provided by Mr Rifai, Ms Su, and Mr Moshy and to the fact that he did disclose other properties potentially affected by the business before Council. The extent of such affectation does not appear from the evidence.
As to the consequential orders which should be made I was referred by counsel to a number of cases, one of which concerned Mr Mehajer himself. In that case (Mehajer v Chief Executive - Office of Local Government [2014] NSWSC 1804, Adams J, 19 December 2014) Mr Mehajer had, on two occasions, failed to disclose fully his pecuniary interests as required by s449(1) of the Act. This Tribunal had ordered that he be suspended from his office as a councillor for the period of 1 month. Justice Adams concluded his judgment, at [23]: It seems to me that, as egregious as the plaintiff's conduct was, it did not warrant suspension from office. This would not only punish him but his constituents, for all that they could consult other Councillors. Had there been some element of deliberate concealment or deceit involved, suspension might well have been necessary but that is not the case. Accordingly, I make the following orders - (1) the decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of 29 May 2014 is set aside; (2) in lieu thereof, Councillor Mehajer is reprimanded and his right to be paid any fee or other remuneration to which he would otherwise be entitled as the holder of civic office is suspended for the period of three months dating from, and including, the date of the next payment due (without suspending him from civic office for that period). (3) The parties to make written submissions as to costs.
The breaches of the Act before Adams J occurred at about the same time as the breaches I have found. For that reason I treat these breaches as no more than another demonstration of the hubris which Mr Mehajer exhibited when entering upon his role as a councillor.
Nonetheless I regard the present matter as much more serious than the matter before Adams J. Here Mr Mehajer failed to disclose a direct and substantial pecuniary interest in a matter before the Council at meetings which he attended and where he voted in support of his own interests.
Moreover, Mr Mehajer's initial response to the allegations made against him, rather than evidence contrition, seemed to me to reveal a serious lack of respect for or appreciation of the high degree of probity which the law required of him. He was first notified of the alleged breaches of the Act by letter from the Chief Executive, Office of Local Government dated 13 June 2014. He was invited to contact an officer if he wished to discuss the matter.
Apparently there was a response by email and a discussion leading to an email from the Office of Local Government to Mr Mehajer dated 10 July 2014: I refer to the Office of Local Government's letter to you (reference A348700), about an investigation into a possible breach by you of the pecuniary interest provisions of the Local Government Act 1993. I also refer to your email to the Office of 25 June 2014 and to our discussion on 9 July 2014. As discussed, the investigation relates to your participation in three separate meetings of Auburn City Council during 2012 and 2013, involving planning proposal PP-3/2010. Specifically, your failure to disclose an interest as Director of Mehajer Bros Pty Ltd, owner of 3 Mary Street, Auburn. To progress this matter, you are invited to attend an interview on 23 or 24 July 2014. The interview will be held in the Office of Local Government's Sydney office, Level 9, 6 O'Connell Street, Sydney. The time of the interview will be confirmed following advice about your availability to attend. Alternatively, you may wish to forward a written submission about this matter to the Office. In this case, you are requested to do so, by no later than 25 July 2014.
It seems there was no reply to this letter and the Office sent another email on 22 July 2014: I refer to my email of 10 July 2014 and confirm that you have not advised of your intention to attend an interview. In the circumstances, I take this opportunity to reiterate that should you wish to make a written submission in relation to this matter, please do so by no later than 25 July 2014. If the Office does not receive any information by this date, the Office will proceed to finalise this matter.
Mr Mehajer replied on 25 July 2014 : I have no issues with attending any interview. However, please work with me to allocate a time that suits my busy schedule. I am always willing to cooperate. Thanks kindly. Kind Regards, Salim M.A Mehajer Director
There was a further email from the Office on 25 July 2014: Dear Clr Mehajer Please advise what time suits you to attend an interview in the Sydney office next week (except Friday, 1 August 2014). If I do not hear from you by 4pm today, I will proceed to finalise the matter. Katrina Annis-Brown | Senior Investigator
So far as the evidence relates there was no further response from Mr Mehajer until he filed an affidavit and submissions for the purposes of the hearing in this Tribunal.
The orders available to the Tribunal are provided for by s482 of the Act: 482 Decision of NCAT - pecuniary interest matters 1. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal may, if it finds a complaint against a councillor is proved: (a) counsel the councillor, or (b) reprimand the councillor, or (c) suspend the councillor from civic office for a period not exceeding 6 months, or (d) disqualify the councillor from holding civic office for a period not exceeding 5 years, or (e) suspend the councillor's right to be paid any fee or other remuneration, to which the councillor would otherwise be entitled as the holder of the civic office, in respect of a period not exceeding 6 months (without suspending the councillor from civic office for that period). … 5. In determining which action, if any, to take against a person under this section, the Tribunal may take into account any previous complaints proved against the person, any action previously taken against the person and any other relevant matters. 6. To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a councillor includes a reference to a former councillor.
Accepting that Mr Mehajer did not intentionally commit breaches of the Act and, taking into account both the references tendered as to his work in the community, and the fact that he made special disclosures at the meetings of some of, if not all, the properties owned by him, I do not think an order disqualifying him from Civic Office is required. There should, however in my view, be a significant sanction to make clear to Mr Mehajer and other persons who offer themselves for, or are elected to, public office in Local Government, that they have statutory obligations which include obligations to act honestly and transparently in the performance of their responsibilities. These obligations are not to be undertaken casually or lightly. Ignorance is no excuse and each Councillor, upon election is required to acquaint herself or himself with the obligations, comply with them punctiliously and if necessary take advice upon them. In the circumstances I believe that something more than counselling or a reprimand is required in this case.
If the Applicant wishes to seek an order for costs, it may file and serve submissions within 21 days. Mr Mehajer will have 21 days to make submissions in reply. Thereafter the matter will be determined on the papers. If no submissions are received from the Applicant there will be no order as to costs.
I make these findings and orders: 1. I find Councillor Mehajer guilty of breaches of section 451 of the Act committed on 27 November 2012, 4 December 2013, and 11 December 2013. 2. I order that Councillor Mehajer be suspended from Civic Office for a period of 4 months after the date of publication of this decision. 3. Subject to para 33 no order as to costs.

Office of Local Government v Salim Mehajer

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (4)