You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.
Justice David Gendall dismissed Cr Vandervis’ application for a judicial review last year after the councillor’s colleagues had found him in breach of the Dunedin City Council’s code of conduct following an investigation.
Investigator David Benham found Cr Vandervis had been ‘‘loud, aggressive and intimidating’’ towards a staff member in September 2019 and the council issued him with a written censure.
Cr Vandervis wants the Court of Appeal to set that aside.
As of Tuesday, the court had not yet set a hearing date.
The incident stemmed from Cr Vandervis being ticketed for exceeding the half-hour time limit where he had parked.
He has taken particular issue with the claim he tried to get a parking ticket waived, arguing instead he attempted to report a malfunctioning, mislabelled parking meter.
In his notice of appeal to the court, Cr Vandervis’ counsel, Len Andersen QC, argued the councillor was not told during the investigation that the allegation included a claim he was trying to use his influence as a councillor to avoid paying for a parking ticket.
Among the other grounds for appeal was that Justice Gendall erred in determining any defects in the investigation process were remedied by the opportunity Cr Vandervis had to defend himself at the council meeting in which councillors delivered their verdict.
Cr Vandervis has asked the Court of Appeal to set aside the council’s decision that he breached the code of conduct, as well as the censure.
He is seeking a declaration that former council chief executive Dr Sue Bidrose acted unlawfully in the way she handled or passed on the complaint.
Mr Andersen had argued in the High Court Dr Bidrose was the only person entitled to make a code of conduct complaint, but she seemed to act as a facilitator, rather than assuming responsibility.
In the grounds for appeal, he said Justice Gendall was wrong about the complaint being made by the chief executive.
Cr Vandervis is seeking a declaration Mr Benham had no jurisdiction to receive the complaint and that he acted contrary to the principles of natural justice.
After the High Court decision, Cr Vandervis wrote that it was now unwise for elected representatives to criticise any staff member not doing their job or to be a whistle-blower in the public interest.