Bitter election sign war to roll on after Supreme Court splits costs between mayoral rivals

The incoming mayor of a bayside council has been awarded part costs in a claim against signs erected by her mayoral rival Andrew Laming. But the sign war may not end with today’s awarding of costs.

Clockwise from top left, an anti-Andrew Laming election sign; mayoral candidates Dr Andrew Laming and mayor-elect Jos Mitchell and an anti-Jos Mitchell sign.

A bitter political battle over election signs between two mayoral candidates for a bayside city came to a head when the Supreme Court awarded part costs to the elected candidate today.

Redland City mayor-elect Jos Mitchell was granted two-thirds of the costs for successfully bringing a court injunction to stop her rival, Dr Andrew Laming, using “misleading” election signs.

But her rival, Dr Laming would not comment on whether he would be pursuing further legal advice on signs erected during the campaign stating “Lammo = Lies”, which had the handwritten words “authorised by J Mitchell” and an address at the bottom of the sign.

Ms Mitchell won the March 16 election with 52.24 per cent of the official first preference count thrashing Dr Laming who obtained 25.79 per cent with the third candidate, Cindy Corrie, 21.97 per cent.

Lawyers for the mayor elect successfully argued that Dr Laming’s signs falsely linked Ms Mitchell to the Australian Greens political party because they said “Jos = Green$”.

The Supreme Court on March 15 granted Ms Mitchell an injunction forcing Dr Laming to remove the signs eight hours before polls opened.

Today, the court ordered Dr Laming pay two-thirds of Ms Mitchell’s costs.

Also before the court was an affidavit from Ms Mitchell’s lawyer Malcolm Robinson of Robinson Locke Litigation lawyers, which claimed Ms Mitchell had not authorised the “Lammo = Lies” signs.

An excerpt from a Supreme Court affidavit.

In his affidavit, Mr Robinson said Ms Mitchell had no knowledge of the anti-Laming signs which were “created without her knowledge”.

“As soon as she became aware of them, she required them to be removed and they were and, to her understanding, the signs were in place for 30 to 40 minutes,” the court document said.

Ms Mitchell said she had no knowledge of who had erected the anti-Laming sign and was unable to comment on the costs until she had the full details.

After leaving court, Dr Laming said he was pleased with the costs result.

“The Lammo = Lies signs is now an unauthorised sign, which Jos repudiated, but she also controlled its removal and was misleading when she said that sign was only up for 30 to 40 minutes, when they were visible all week,” Dr Laming said.

“If she did not authorise that sign, why were her team handling the signage?

“She wants her team to take the fall. What integrity is that?”

The court has given 21 days for Ms Mitchell to itemise her costs.

Originally published as Bitter election sign war to roll on after Supreme Court splits costs between mayoral rivals