BREAKING: victory! Councillor’s court win after $1m Eels deal”, The New South Wales Supreme Court has overturned a council censure imposed on Parramatta Councillor Kellie Darley, rulling that she was….
NSW Supreme Court Quashes Censure of Councillor Over Parramatta Eels Deal Criticism
The New South Wales Supreme Court has overturned a council censure imposed on Parramatta Councillor Kellie Darley, ruling that she was denied procedural fairness after she publicly criticised a multimillion-dollar sponsorship agreement between her local council and the Parramatta Eels rugby league club.
The decision, handed down on Friday morning by Acting Justice Monika Schmidt, quashes the July 2024 censure and marks a significant legal victory for Cr Darley, who had argued that the disciplinary measures taken against her were unfair and politically motivated.
—
Background: A Secretive Partnership
At the heart of the dispute is a three-year partnership deal worth over $1 million between the City of Parramatta Council and the Parramatta Eels. The arrangement was approved in December 2023 during a closed-door council meeting, a move that immediately sparked controversy given the lack of public consultation and limited details provided to ratepayers.
The partnership was promoted as a way to “strengthen ties” between the city and the NRL club while boosting economic and cultural opportunities. However, questions quickly arose regarding transparency, community benefit, and whether the council should prioritise funding sporting partnerships over local services.
Cr Darley, an independent councillor known for her outspoken advocacy on governance and accountability, became one of the deal’s strongest critics.
—
The Censure
In the weeks following the December 2023 meeting, Cr Darley posted a series of statements on social media questioning the deal’s value for money. She also gave interviews to local media, describing the arrangement as “a misuse of ratepayer funds” and alleging that residents had been left in the dark.
Her comments prompted several fellow councillors to lodge complaints, alleging that she had breached confidentiality rules by disclosing information from a closed session.
In July 2024, the council formally censured Cr Darley, a rare but serious form of discipline used against elected representatives. The censure carried no direct financial penalty but was seen as a significant political sanction, damaging to both reputation and credibility.
—
Supreme Court Decision
Cr Darley challenged the censure in the Supreme Court, arguing that the council’s disciplinary process was flawed, biased, and deprived her of a fair opportunity to defend herself.
On Friday, Acting Justice Monika Schmidt agreed, ruling that the council had indeed denied procedural fairness.
> “Councillor Darley was not afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations against her in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice,” Justice Schmidt said in her judgment.
The ruling found that the council had failed to properly consider whether the information disclosed by Cr Darley was genuinely confidential, as opposed to information that should have been accessible to the public in the first place.
Justice Schmidt ordered the censure quashed in its entirety, effectively clearing Darley’s record.
—
Darley’s Response
Speaking after the ruling, Cr Darley described the outcome as a “victory for democracy, transparency, and free speech in local government.”
> “Councillors are elected to represent their communities, not to be silenced when they raise legitimate concerns about how ratepayer money is spent,” she said.
“This case wasn’t just about me—it was about ensuring that councillors can speak openly and honestly without fear of political retribution when deals are made behind closed doors.”
She also renewed her call for the council to reconsider the Eels partnership, insisting that the funds could have been better spent on essential services such as parks, libraries, and community programs.
—
Council’s Reaction
The City of Parramatta Council issued a short statement acknowledging the Supreme Court’s decision but declined to comment further, citing legal advice.
Several councillors who had supported the censure expressed frustration at the ruling, privately arguing that breaches of confidentiality threaten the integrity of council processes. However, others suggested the case highlighted a broader need for reform in how councils handle sensitive commercial agreements.
—
Transparency and Governance in Question
The case has reignited debate about the balance between confidentiality and transparency in local government. While councils often hold closed meetings to discuss commercial matters, critics argue that this practice can be overused to shield controversial decisions from public scrutiny.
Governance experts say the ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that councillors—who are directly elected by ratepayers—are able to challenge decisions without facing disproportionate punishment.
Dr Elaine Martin, a political scientist at the University of Sydney, said the judgment should serve as a “wake-up call” for councils across New South Wales.
> “When councillors are sanctioned for raising concerns, it undermines democratic accountability,” Dr Martin said.
“This ruling reinforces that due process must be followed, and that confidentiality cannot be used as a blanket excuse to stifle debate.”
—
Community Reaction
Local residents have been divided over the Eels partnership itself, with some supporting the council’s efforts to back a high-profile sporting brand, while others agree with Darley that the money could have been spent elsewhere.
On community forums and social media, Friday’s decision drew praise from supporters of greater transparency. One resident wrote, “Finally, someone is standing up to the council’s secrecy. Ratepayers deserve to know where every dollar goes.”
Others, however, argued that councillors should respect closed-meeting rules regardless of their personal views, warning that breaches of confidentiality could damage the city’s ability to negotiate future commercial deals.
—
Implications Going Forward
The Supreme Court’s decision may have broader consequences for how local governments in NSW handle both confidential information and the disciplining of elected officials. Legal observers say councils may now be more cautious about imposing censures, particularly in cases involving public-interest concerns.
For Cr Darley, the ruling represents both personal vindication and a political boost. She is expected to use the outcome as part of her platform heading into the next council election, positioning herself as a champion of transparency and accountability.
Meanwhile, the Parramatta Eels partnership remains in place, but the controversy surrounding it is unlikely to fade quickly. With pressure mounting for greater openness in council decisions, the episode may spark calls for legislative reform at the state level.
—
Conclusion
The quashing of Kellie Darley’s censure by the NSW Supreme Court marks a significant moment in the ongoing tension between confidentiality, transparency, and accountability in local government.
While the council may have sought to discipline one of its own, the court’s ruling highlights that the democratic right of councillors to represent their communities cannot be curtailed by flawed disciplinary processes.
As Parramatta continues to navigate the fallout of its costly partnership with the Eels, the case stands as a reminder that open government and procedural fairness remain at the core of public trust.
Leave a Reply