Glenorchy general manager Peter Brooks wins non-publication order for allegations against him

GLENORCHY City Council general manager Peter Brooks has been granted a non-publication order regarding allegations made against him in a Board of Inquiry draft report.

Glenorchy City Council general manager Peter Brooks. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE

GLENORCHY City Council general manager Peter Brooks has been granted a non-publication order regarding allegations made against him in a Board of Inquiry draft report.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Alan Blow overruled a decision made last month by Associate Justice Stephen Holt to allow details of Mr Brook’s legal action against the board and its members and the results of the Board of Inquiry report to be published.

Mr Brooks — who is on indefinite leave — launched legal action against the board and its members Barry Easther and Lynn Mason in the Supreme Court in June.

MORE: COUNCIL SUSPENDED FOR A SECOND TIME

MORE: BRANCH-ALLEN DROPS ACTION AGAINST INQUIRY

In his action, Mr Brooks claimed the board did not afford him natural justice by:

FAILING to allow him to test significantly adverse evidence at an oral hearing;

FAILING to notify him of the information or evidence considered by them to support findings that “would be likely to prejudicially affect” his status as the general manager of the council and/or his reputation; and

HAVING bias against him in the draft report of their findings.

In July, Associate Justice Holt rejected the application by Mr Brooks’s representatives Justin Zeeman and Shaun McElwaine SC for the details of his affidavit to be suppressed — which was successfully opposed by the Mercury.

However, Mr McElwaine SC appealed to Chief Justice Blow, saying the publication of the allegations against Mr Brooks would make the trial [to determine Mr Brooks’s legal action] futile.

Mr McElwaine argued that if the criticisms of Mr Brooks by the inquiry became public knowledge before the applicant could defend himself from them then the trial would be rendered useless.

Paul Turner, acting on behalf of the Board of Inquiry and for Acting Attorney-General Matthew Groom, argued Associate Justice Holt had not erred in his original judgment, but Chief Justice Blow granted a non-publication order of Mr Brooks’s affidavit and its annexures.

Chief Justice Blow’s non-publication order also includes the draft Board of Inquiry report, even though its recommendations and some of its findings have been reported already by the Mercury.

“His Honour [Chief Justice Blow] explained there was a power to make the orders sought and the learned Associate Judge [Holt] should have considered whether it was necessary to do so in order to prevent relief sought in the substantive proceedings becoming nugatory,” Chief Justice Blow wrote in his findings.

“He did not consider that point and therefore the exercise of his discretion miscarried.”

The substantive hearing will now be held on Thursday next week.

Mr Brooks declined to comment on the decision.