City council’s legal fees questioned
More than $40,000 of ratepayer funds have been spent on legal action brought by one city councillor, who said it all started with a text message.
As of June 30, the Adelaide City Council has incurred $39,113 in legal costs related to complaints brought against it by councillor Henry Davis.
The figure was published with the agenda of Tuesday’s council meeting, in response to questions from Deputy Lord Mayor Phillip Martin.
Martin raised in Tuesday’s meeting that there were three amounts related to litigation brought by Davis against the council: the almost $40,000, a $3750 excess payable from the council to LGA Mutual Liability Scheme and an undisclosed cost that the scheme would seek to recover.
Council CEO Michael Sedgman said on Tuesday the undisclosed cost “is a matter between the Mutual Liability Scheme’s lawyers and councillor Davis and council is not a party to those matters”.
The Adelaide City Council utilised the LGA’s Mutual Liability Scheme when Davis brought Supreme Court action against it last year.
All councils in SA contribute to the scheme, which Martin said in the meeting was paid for “by all ratepayers in South Australia”.
The scheme is a partnership between the Local Government Association and the insurance firm Jardine Lloyd Thompson, which includes public liability, professional indemnity, and risk management products.
You might like
Davis was not present at Tuesday’s meeting as he is currently overseas.
Supreme Court case
The costs raised in last night’s meeting relate to judicial review proceedings Davis brought against five respondents: the City of Adelaide, its CEO Michael Sedgman, Lord Mayor Dr Jane Lomax-Smith, Norman Waterhouse lawyer Felice D’Agostino and an unknown person.
Davis brought legal action against the parties after a code of conduct complaint made against him for texting during a council meeting was escalated to an investigation.
The Adelaide City Council’s meeting procedures were updated in 2023 to prevent councillors from sending texts during meetings.
After starting proceedings, Davis dropped his complaint against D’Agostino.
“The text said ‘Yikes Ok’. A two-word text message triggered a multi-thousand-dollar investigation, paid for by ratepayers because it was against some procedure rule that wasn’t even published on the website at the time,” Davis said in a statement on Tuesday.
Davis took the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing he was subject to procedural unfairness, that the Lord Mayor had a conflict of interest and that the decision to investigate him was “vexatious, frivolous and trivial”.
Stay informed, daily
The court dismissed Davis’ application for judicial review in March.
“I took this to court because I genuinely believed there had to be a minimum bar—some line of common sense—to stop councils from wasting money on nonsense,” Davis said.
“I hoped to set a precedent: a benchmark for what counts as “trivial” so councillors could be protected from abuse of process.
“Instead, the Court has confirmed what many feared and what lawyers had been telling mayors—there is no threshold. No bar. No filter. A mayor can launch a full investigation over a text message, a facial expression, or simply because they don’t like you. And the public foots the bill.
“This is bigger than me. Across South Australia, millions are being wasted investigating councillors for petty, vexatious, or political reasons. Councillors are being pushed around, silenced, and intimidated by mayors and CEOs using these codes as weapons.
“It’s time for reform. Councils should be required to dismiss complaints that are clearly trivial or vexatious. A minimum bar would save millions, restore fairness, and let councils get back to what they’re supposed to do—serve the public.”
Council’s legal bills
The costs revealed by the council this week do not include legal costs (such as sending staff to view hearings or receiving general legal advice) for proceedings the council is not a party to.
Davis has also taken legal action against councillors Martin and Janet Giles for defamation in this council term. It is unknown what the council has spent on receiving advice in this matter.
In April it was also revealed the council spent about $97,000 on legal costs regarding the Court of Disputed Returns case which voided the 2022 Central Ward election.
The Adelaide City Council was not a party to that case but sent a lawyer to attend more than 40 separate court hearings in three years.
