Glen Eira Council spares no expense in pursuit of Frank Penhalluriack
- Andrea Kellett
- January 22, 2014 4:32PM
LAWYERS for Glen Eira Council have embarked on a massive hunt for witnesses in their criminal court case against former councillor Frank Penhalluriack.
Melbourne Magistrates’ Court this morning heard council lawyers subpoenaed 27 organisations in December ahead of a court battle due to start in March.
Tony Burns, for Glen Eira Council, said council lawyers were looking to “ascertain account holders so further witnesses can be identified”.
The list includes banks, taxi companies, power companies the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Victoria Police and even entertainment company Blockbuster Australia.
The council has charged Mr Penhalluriack, his company K.I Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd and former tenant Tomer Rabba with breaching the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
It alleges they ran an illegal rooming house from a rental property owned by K.I Penhalluriack Nominees Pty Ltd on Hawthorn Rd, Caulfield, between May and June 2012.
All have pleaded not guilty and are due to battle it out in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in March.
Council lawyers are searching for a man known only as “Brent”, who is alleged to have had a crucial discussion with a council building inspector at the Hawthorn Rd rental property.
That discussion allegedly relates to how many people were staying at the property.
Tony Burns, for Glen Eira Council, told this morning’s special mention that the subpoenas had produced a “large volume of documents” in the search for witnesses.
Mr Penhalluriack maintained outside court that the council is wasting ratepayers’ money pursuing him, and has hired a QC to represent him.
Ratepayers already copped an $11,800 legal bill in November after a crucial omission by council lawyers on day one of the case.
The council was ordered to pay defence teams’ costs for their wasted appearance after the council’s legal team did not give adequate notice of crucial witness evidence.
The contest is due to start March 3.
Glen Eira Debates 
January 22, 2014 at 9:02 PM
I would trust Penhalluriack any day of the week over Newton and the gang and new gang member “Bretty”. I like many other residents are sick and tired of the current administration and Councillors and will rejoice when sense prevails and a clean sweep is made…and when the new Ombudsman is appointed it may be sooner than the next elections.
January 22, 2014 at 9:11 PM
Frank should just go Kosher and use the Kornhauser excuse. If you can get the gang on side, the CEO and cronies follow. However, The inevitable will be that Frank wins the case and is all going to end in a big cost to residents and even higher rates.
January 22, 2014 at 9:19 PM
Sounds to me that Frank was charged without adequate evidence.Council should make this go away before we incur more expense.I thought we had a couple of lawyers on Council.
January 22, 2014 at 9:53 PM
Holy moly!!!!! 2 years on from the alleged 2 month event Council is still pursuing Penhalluriack and has finally decided that they need better evidence than Brent “No Surname” said.
That after all this time, Council decides to embark on such a phishing expedition for “evidence” (ie. the basic evidence that should have been gathered prior to laying the charge) points to total incompetence on the part of the Administration, Councillors and their legal advisers.
The cost of this current expedition and evidence assessment ain’t gonna be cheap. Add this to the $’s Council has spent over the past 2 years and it’s probably tipping the million dollar mark.
As a ratepayer without bottomless pockets I fail to see how this stacks up with fiscal responsibility or ensuring value for money.
January 22, 2014 at 10:10 PM
I doubt very much that the alleged breach of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act really is a criminal matter, and you won’t find “illegal rooming house” anywhere in the Act either. Perhaps the HUN meant “unregistered prescribed accommodation”. Curiously, no decision to prosecute appears anywhere in Council’s Minutes. The aborted day in court centred on Council wanting to rely on hearsay “evidence”, so little wonder it’s now embarked on a fishing expedition in the hope of finding some actual evidence.
Since the house concerned no longer exists it’s hard to see how this prosecution satisfies either the principle of accountability [s8] or the principle of proportionality [s9]. The fact that 3 different people or companies have been charged suggests Council doesn’t know who it thinks was the proprietor. If Council doesn’t know how many people lived in the house then it can’t know whether it even qualifies as prescribed accommodation.
January 22, 2014 at 11:14 PM
Fishing expedition is dead right. What the hell has customs got to do with alleged boarding houses? Newton’s already cost council at least $25000 for the last day in court that was a failure and now theres going to be plenty more days of wasted ratepayers money. I hope Frank wins big time and then sues Newton personally.
Ben you got it in one. Kornhauser school that has illegal accommodation doesn’t get a mention and that’s been running for years. On this one the gang have turned a blind eye and given this bloke everything he wants. Frank cops it in the neck for something that they’ve got buckleys of winning.
January 22, 2014 at 11:39 PM
Does anyone know how much it costs to get a subpoena?
January 22, 2014 at 11:51 PM
A quick search has lead us to this info –
SUBPOENAS
To issue a subpoena (Form 42A or Form 42AA of Chapter I) $166.90
To view documents produced pursuant to an issued subpoena $21.80
(Fee is payable per Court file, not per subpoena)
SUMMONS
(Interlocutory application) $350.50
(Commencing a proceeding under Order 65) $961.70
See – https://assets.justice.vic.gov.au/scv/resources/378b6f8f-aad4-4520-9a80-7263744f54da/2013-2014_scvictoria_%2bprothonotary_fees%5B1%5D.pdf
Hence, if council paid $166.90 for each subpoena, the grand total is already $4,500+!
January 23, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Does this include the cost the cost of the lawyer’s and Council administrator’s time or is it just the court charges?
January 23, 2014 at 11:20 AM
court charges only
January 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM
So $4,500+ will look like petty cash by the time lawyers fee and Council Administrators time is factored in.
January 23, 2014 at 10:41 AM
When Frank wins Newton should pay back with interest all the dough.
January 23, 2014 at 11:24 AM
EARTH TO THE MAYOR & COUNCILLORS
It’s about time you stepped up to the plate and performed your oversight role by objectively assessing the actions the Administration has undertaken in your name. The assessment should include the amount spent and estimate future costs of continued pursuit, allegation and quality of the evidence, quality of legal opinions obtained, likely hood of success (not looking good if 27 subpoenas are issued 2 years after the alleged incident of running a rooming house for 2 months. Transient populations and all that) and most importantly the implications if the defendants wins and defendant costs and damages are awarded against Council.
Not a huge task – just gather the info and assess. Then ask yourself if this was you personally pursuing an issue of this nature would persist?
January 23, 2014 at 4:53 PM
What’s the fuss? If there is insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict Frank will be acquitted. If not – serves him right. The former Councillor has plenty of shekels so he can hire the best silks.
January 23, 2014 at 5:19 PM
The “fuss” is that over a two year period ratepayers have been forced to pay for either incompetence in that council should have gathered its evidence far earlier and better or, that even if guilty of the alleged offence, that council is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in pursuing one individual over a matter that lasted all of 5 weeks.
These actions should be looked at in the light of what concessions council made to the Kornhausers – no infringement notices, no legal actions against an “illegal” education centre and certainly nothing said or done regarding a shared accommodation arrangement. On top of all this council decided not to fight any supreme court challenge even though they had at first refused the permit. I think many residents would like to know why certain actions are taken against Penhalluriack at great cost and nothing done in the Kornhauser affair.
January 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM
How naive. The determining factor should not be the amount of money somebody allegedly has, but the strength of the case, and an informed assessment of the costs, risks, possible outcomes, and public benefit. I don’t characterise the comments here as “fuss” but criticism—criticism of our CEO and of councillors, whose judgement is again questionable.
Remember, as of December 2013 Council didn’t have a case. It has made no attempt to demonstrate that its decisions are transparent, systematic, and appropriate. Nor has it shown that the decisions it has made and actions taken are proportionate to the public health risk that it seeks to be prevented, minimised or controlled. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears to have made an arbitrary decision. Council hasn’t documented publicly anything to suggest it is acting in the public interest, or that it is spending our money prudently, or that the range of possible outcomes in the case improves public health. Council should, and should be able to, demonstrate that it is not being vindictive, but after the special favours granted the Kornhausers concerning their rooming house, it’s struggling.
January 23, 2014 at 6:47 PM
Reprobate! Oh Reprobate! My central point was that the evidence would be the determinant. Frank’s wealth was merely a tangential comment.
Some good points there D.Evans. Can’t be a doing Jewish favours thing though as is often mentioned here as I understand Frank is of that faith too.
January 23, 2014 at 7:50 PM
Fact . Frank is not Jewish.
January 24, 2014 at 12:49 PM
Regardihg legal costs …letters written can cost $85.00 per letter and filling out the docs would be an additional cost.
There would be another fee for recieving inwards mail … al adding up to the figure of about $600.00 per our which solicitors currently charge such as Maddocks which our council uses aand of course where Cr Stephen Tang was employed to do his articles.