Cracking the Code: Challenges to Council Codes of Conduct

Cracking the Code: Challenges to Council Codes of Conduct
Tuesday 11 October, 2022
Two local councils’ processes for dealing with breaches of Codes of Conduct for elected members (COC) have recently been subject to legal scrutiny, emphasising the importance of due process and natural justice in council controlled complaints mechanisms.
Under the Local Government Act 2002, all local councils are required to have a COC that regulates the conduct of elected members. The COC sets out council’s expectations as to how elected members conduct themselves, including in their behaviour to staff, other members and the public, disclosure of information, and setting out their legislative obligations in general. As an internal regulatory manual, it is for each individual council to agree to what their behaviour expectations are, how breaches of the COC are determined and any potential sanctions for a breach.
In June, the Court of Appeal considered the process undertaken by the Dunedin City Council in relation to COC complaints, in an ongoing saga that began with a $19 parking ticket and culminated in an application for judicial review. In dismissing Councillor Vandervis’ appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s findings that the complaints made against Councillor Vandervis were validly made, and the COC investigation complied with the principles of natural justice.
The Court of Appeal also found that, under the Dunedin City Council’s COC, the Chief Executive’s role on receipt of a COC complaint from its staff, is to exercise a narrow, gatekeeping inquiry to determine whether to instigate the formal investigation process. It also determined that once the full investigation had commenced, Councillor Vandervis was given sufficient opportunity to respond to the complaint made against him. While this is a fact-specific finding, many Council COCs have similar initial review processes.
After a final attempt to appeal the decision, the three-year legal dispute finally ended in September after the Supreme Court found no "appearance of a miscarriage of justice" and declined Mr Vandervis leave to appeal.
While applications for judicial review related to COC processes are not new, an aggrieved councillor from Nelson City Council has recently brought her case before the Human Rights Commission (HRC). After an independent investigator upheld COC complaints made against Councillor Sanson, Councillor Sanson complained to the HRC about the COC process, alleging “poor treatment at the hands of leadership.” The HRC has since invited the parties to engage in mediation, while the council is due to make its decision on any penalties or sanctions in relation to the original COC complaint.
These two instances highlight the importance of compliance with internal COC procedures and wider principles of natural justice when dealing with complaints against elected members. While councils have the power to regulate their own procedures according to the terms of the COC, councillors subject to complaints procedures are able to bring challenges via external legal mechanisms such as judicial review or the HRC.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Talk to one of our experts
Related Articles

Councils challenge to transfer of water services rejected in High Court
Thursday 30 March, 2023

Director personal liability more acute as tough times bite business
Tuesday 14 February, 2023

When the rubber hits the road - All aboard Aotearoa's challenge
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Declarations that an Enactment Inconsistent with Bill of Rights
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

Proposed mandatory consideration of specific Māori representation
Tuesday 11 October, 2022

New Regime for Protected Disclosures (Whistleblower legislation)
Wednesday 29 June, 2022

Notices of requirement are relevant for resource consent applications
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Court gives guidance on consultation and decision-making process
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

Cultural evidence and the continued draw of the overall judgment
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Fluoridation debate lifted from shoulders of local government
Tuesday 21 December, 2021

Judicial review of Hamilton City Council's development contributions policy
Tuesday 5 October, 2021

Lease of Wanaka Airport set aside due to insufficient consultation
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

What if an abatement notice requires you to breach the Resource Management Act?
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

“No ‘wine-ing’ covenants” declined for a subdivision consent in Gibbston Valley
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021

Councils remain liable for compliance of contractors with the RMA
Thursday 18 March, 2021

Could companies be liable to the public for the harm caused by their emissions?
Tuesday 10 March, 2020

Avoiding double penalties when sentencing a company and director
Thursday 23 April, 2020

Can an easement be granted over an esplanade reserve for a commercial activity?
Thursday 12 December, 2019

How can you identify the subject of an anonymous defamatory statement?
Thursday 10 October, 2019

Australian defamation decision raises risk for public Facebook pages
Wednesday 31 July, 2019

Local authority requiring monetary contributions on designations
Thursday 20 June, 2019

Bella Vista: MBIE Report highlights failure to perform statutory functions
Tuesday 9 April, 2019

Recent decision on "affected persons" highlights the importance of context
Wednesday 28 November, 2018

Court of Appeal recognises new public interest defence to defamation claims
Thursday 27 September, 2018

High Court finds Council liable in negligence for damage from fallen tree
Thursday 27 September, 2018
