Candidate David Vincent told bold bid to oust Matthew Guy likely to fail

An independent candidate who filed a court petition declaring Matthew Guy was “not fit” to sit in parliament has been warned his bid to oust him will likely fail.

Independent candidate David Vincent describes himself as a ‘person of unimpeachable integrity’.

An independent candidate who lost to Matthew Guy at the state election has been warned his audacious bid to oust the former opposition leader from parliament is likely to fail.

David Vincent filed a petition with the Supreme Court in December declaring Mr Guy was “not a fit and proper person to sit in parliament”.

Mr Vincent, who described himself as a “person of unimpeachable integrity”, had asked the court to make him the member for Bulleen instead – despite only snagging 214 votes compared to Mr Guy’s 20,645.

But the former ATO public officer, who fronted the Supreme Court on Wednesday, was told by Justice John Dixon whether Mr Guy was “fit and proper” was a “decision (for) the electorate”.

The hearing comes a week after the Herald Sun revealed Mr Guy was photographed at a lunch to celebrate former Mulgrave candidate Michael Piastrino’s 40th birthday which was also attended by two “heavies” and a standover man.

The Herald Sun revealed Matthew Guy was photographed at a lunch with two ‘heavies’. Picture: David Caird

Mr Vincent, in his petition, pointed to a string of other controversies that have plagued Mr Guy’s career, including his decision to rezone farmland on Phillip Island while Planning Minister and his infamous Lobster with a Mobster scandal.

He also raised recent allegations, which have been referred to IBAC, involving Mr Guy’s former chief of staff Mitch Catlin who allegedly asked a party donor to donate more than $100,000 to his private business.

Mr Vincent, donning a red bow tie and a red poppy lapel pin, represented himself on Wednesday, telling the court he has struggled to obtain legal advice.

“This is basically a public interest application to improve governance within Victoria,” he told Justice Dixon, before requesting that Victoria Police and IBAC be ordered to “produce the results of their investigations so far”.

But Justice Dixon told Mr Vincent the court did not conduct general inquiries “into the performance of parliamentarians”.

“Your petition doesn’t really raise much that … concerns (this court),” he said.

Barrister Rohan Ajzensztat, representing Mr Guy, said his client was only served the petition two days ago but would be seeking for it to be dismissed.

“I’m concerned that it is scandalous, frivolous or an abuse of the process of the court,” he said.

Justice Dixon ordered Mr Ajzensztat to apply for the case to be dismissed in writing and to send that application to Mr Vincent.

He then told the failed independent if he could not convince the court not to grant Mr Guy’s application, his petition would be thrown out.

Even if he could overcome this “first hurdle”, Justice Dixon said Mr Vincent would then face other “issues” in relation to his request for Victoria Police and IBAC to be compelled to produce documents.

Mr Vincent, who resides in California Gully near Bendigo, also wanted to be appointed the Speaker of the Assembly or President of the Council so he can “clear up the mess” in what he described as a corrupt parliament.

However, he received the lowest first preference vote in Bulleen, winning only 0.5 per cent of the total count, placing him behind other independent hopeful Sanjeev Sabhlok, as well as candidates from the Animal Justice Party and Family First Victoria.

Mr Guy – who was not in court on Wednesday – won 48.1 per cent of first preferences, with Labor’s candidate Ian Rogers only managing to pick up 32.7 per cent.

“If Matthew was disqualified then his preferences would flow through,” Mr Vincent said in his petition.

“Although this would probably elect a different minor candidate, I am asking the court to appoint me.”

The Liberal Party has been contacted for comment on Mr Vincent’s legal action.

Mr Vincent declined to comment.

The case will return to court on February 27.