SA Court of Appeal judgment regarding removal of Council members

Last week, the South Australian Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in Burner v City of Salisbury; Bawden v City of Salisbury [2026] SASCA 134. That judgment is now publicly available and can be accessed here.

Thus, like the Supreme Court before it (see here), the Court of Appeal has now upheld the validity of the City of Salisbury’s decisions to remove two councillors from office under section 54(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1999 (LG Act) following the councillors’ absence, without leave, from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council. 

The judgments of the Supreme Court and, now, the Court of Appeal, provide important guidance for South Australian councils dealing with councillor absences, and the operation of section 54(1)(d) of the LG Act. This includes discussion of the distinction between a councillor providing an apology and obtaining a leave of absence.

Further, the judgments provide guidance on principles of general importance, including the standard of what constitutes ‘apprehended bias’ when decisions are made in a politicised context. Certain important observations regarding the interaction between the LG Act’s conflict of interest provisions and apprehended bias are also provided.

Norman Waterhouse is pleased to have acted for the Council in this matter. If you would like to discuss this important legal development, or any of the matters discussed in the judgments, please feel free to contact Felice D’Agostino on fdagostino@normans.com.au, Dale Mazzachi on dmazzachi@normans.com.au or Chris Alexandrides on CAlexandrides@normans.com.au.