Fresh action launched against Greater Dandenong City Council and two of its staff

The slug gate saga has taken another turn as Dandenong Council fights to have the case squashed.

Dandenong Council is fighting to have the slug gate saga squashed in court as I Cook Foods’ latest legal action over the health scandal hits the Supreme Court.

Ian Cook and his catering company, forced to close after a slug was allegedly planted at the business, have launched fresh action against Greater Dandenong City Council and two of its staff.

The latest action for malicious prosecution follows a separate case against the council that was dropped in July last year, with an I Cook Foods spokesman earlier telling the Herald Sun the fresh case “will be all about the slug”.

In 2019, the council launched a probe against the food supplier over an allegedly contaminated sandwich, with a council inspector later accused of planting the garden slug in an act of sabotage.

Ian Cook’s catering company I Cook Foods was forced to close. Picture: Tim Carafa

Mr Cook claimed his business was targeted because the council had a stake in a rival catering company, Community Chef.

Christopher Winneke KC, for Dandenong Council, on Tuesday called for the latest case to be dismissed or permanently stayed for abuse of process because the council had earlier been named, then scrapped, as a defendant in a civil trial against the State Government last year.

Mr Cook claimed a “bittersweet victory” in his civil trial against the State in November after the Supreme Court found his business had been closed with invalid orders, but dismissed his claim for $50m in damages.

Mr Winneke labelled the latest action a “strategy” to “re-run the same case” against the council and its environmental health officers Elizabeth Garlick and Leanne Johnson.

A lawyer representing Dandenong Council on Tuesday called for the latest case to be dismissed or permanently stayed for abuse of process. Picture: Google

“In other words, he was keeping his options open to have a crack at the council if he lost to the state,” he said.

But barrister John Ribbands, for Mr Cook and his company, rejected the bid for a stay, saying his clients had taken the “proper approach” in withdrawing the earlier action against the council after being unable to pursue the claims they wanted to pursue.

“It’s simply a question of trying to put one’s best foot forward on a limited budget as opposed to the significant resources of the state or the council,” Mr Ribbands said.

Mr Cook’s lawyer says ‘it’s simply a question of trying to put one’s best foot forward’. Picture: Nicki Connolly

He further stated that there was a public interest in “holding council and its officers to account” and to ensure that those who work for the governmental body “act according to law”.

“That public interest is in favour of the council as well because it would equally apply to the council having the capacity of seeing its officers exonerated if (Cook) were to lose the trial,” Mr Ribbands said.

Associate Justice Caroline Goulden has reserved her decision, which will be handed down at a later date.