From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct

From car parking fine to judicial review of a council’s code of conduct
Tuesday 15 June, 2021
Dunedin City Council’s (“Council”) Code of Conduct (“Code”) unexpectedly became the subject of a recent High Court judicial review after a councillor received a car parking fine.
Having received a ticket in a council carpark, Cr Vandervis made a complaint about the ticket. In doing so, he offended the staff member to whom he complained who made a formal complaint about his aggressive and intimidating behaviour. The Chief Executive initiated an investigation into the incident and the results were presented to Council who voted to sanction Cr Vandervis with a formal censure. Cr Vandervis lodged the current judicial review to challenge the process undertaken in the investigation and Council’s decision to censure him, claiming the process did not comply with Council’s Code.
All councils are required, under the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”), to have a code of conduct. All councillors are required by the LGA to comply with their own council’s code of conduct. The LGA leaves it to members of each council to agree what they expect of each other’s behaviour, how breaches of the code might be determined and any potential sanctions for a breach.
Dunedin City Council’s Code sets out principles to guide how complaints should be made and how a breach will be made out. An appendix to the Code details the process for the determination and investigation of complaints.
The challenge
Cr Vandervis’ most substantial allegation was that the Council failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and fairness: he said he was not given a copy of the complaint, was not given sufficient details of the complaint, was not told of the witnesses interviewed or statements taken against him, and did not have a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him during the course of the investigation.
Principles of judicial review in the context of local government
The High Court emphasised the focus of judicial review is on process, not outcome and that as a code is an internal regulatory manual, whether there has been correct process or not is generally a matter for a council to assess. In order for a court to intervene, the process would need to fail in such a substantial way that the decision could not stand. The grounds were all rejected.
The Court held that it would likely have exercised its discretion against granting relief even if any of the grounds had been made out: “because this incident involves a disciplinary context for a member of what is inherently a political body, in any event, relief, in my view, would likely not be appropriate” (at [74]).
Conclusion
The case is a reminder that all councils must have a sufficiently workable and detailed code of conduct, and that compliance with it, by all councillors, is required. A judge undertaking judicial review of internal council processes in this context will focus primarily on process and, subject to the facts, will likely be hesitant to intervene with council processes and decision-making.
For any questions relating to this article, please get in touch with one of our experts below.
Author
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

Operative plans and proposed plans: what to do when there is a significant policy shift?
Wednesday 30 March, 2022

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

Avoidance policies reign in the wake of King Salmon, but what do they require?
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

Will new housing density rules increase contributions for developers?
Thursday 28 October, 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

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

Randerson Report released: New Direction for Resource Management
Wednesday 5 August, 2020

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

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2019 for consultation
Thursday 3 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

Court upholds sensible approach to local authority works on private property
Tuesday 24 July, 2018

Must Councils accept an assertion that a person is ‘suitably qualified'?
Friday 9 March, 2018

Tendering pitfalls: the importance of "no process contract" clauses
Friday 15 September, 2017
