Neither side will discuss the legal bill for the case…….Glen Eira Council also did not respond to a question of whether its lawyers had asked Mr Penhalluriack to sign a confidentiality agreement. ‘No Comment’ or both sides refusing to answer questions can only mean one thing in our view – there is a confidentiality agreement and these usually involve some kind of ‘settlement’. The only ‘settlement’ that would make any sense in this case would be if council, after withdrawing its charges, has decided to hand over some money to Penhalluriack.
Glen Eira Debates 
March 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM
Newton may have lost this battle but he won’t lose the war. I hear that Council have an additional charge of allegedly spitting on the sidewalk to bring against Penhalluriack. Gotta keep those SCs gainfully employed at ratepayers expense.
March 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM
An give Newton a hefty payrise too boot
March 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM
You can bet the money is all going Penhalluriack’s way and so it should.
About 2 months back half a day in the magistrates court saw Penhalluriack’s costs ($12,000) awarded against Council because Council were not ready to present their case – even though they had had two years. Since then Council did a massive subpoena hunt (22 @ $300 court costs only – excludes legal fees in getting the subpoena and doing the followup). End result dropped charges and silence on all fronts except for Council’s press release highlighting the fact that someone else got done for the rooming house.
I reckon Council’s costs must be tipping the $150K – for a failed vendetta
No wonder nobody trusts this Council.
March 11, 2014 at 6:30 PM
The Caulfield Village developer must be awarded the highest accolade for the successful corruption of the English language. Open space is available in “many different forms”. In translation this would mean that there is no public open space. The amount of private open space for many of these chicken coops is under 4 metres according to an earlier posting on this site. Council will no doubt consider this as quite adequate and the fact that many will be living like mushrooms without natural light throughout their apartments will also be condoned by our decision makers. It all fits the devious plans worked out half a dozen years ago and approved by both sides of politics and the aiding and abetting by the gang and Newton to the detriment of residents. All should be congratulated for their handiwork and collusion.
March 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM
Obviously Council has to try to put a positive spin on its waste of our resources. The timeline shows the place was no longer a rooming house at the time the prosecution was launched. Council’s media releases about two previous prosecutions state that the previous offenders contributed $2000 and $6500 to Council’s costs, so that establishes the order of magnitude to be expected. I expect Frank Penhalluriack will be out of pocket, confident as I am that a bully like Council will deliberately offer something lesser in the expectation that the target runs out of resources or is worn out by the protracted fight and is therefore prepared to settle.
March 11, 2014 at 7:04 PM
Please note that the $2000 fine imposed on Mr Raba does NOT go to Council but to the Court Fund – meaning charity and council comes out with no money in its coffers from this fine. It also needs mentioning that the magistrate had the option of imposing over $8000 as a fine. She did not! Hence in her eyes at least the “crime” was nowhere near a ‘hanging offence’. Council has therefore waged a two year battle over a property that stood for a few weeks and ultimately cost ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars. Readers should also note that an earlier charge against Mrs Penhalluriack was dropped ages ago. Why there is this scatter gun approach to litigation and with no apparent thought given to the costs to residents becomes a very fair question indeed. It is surely time that councillors took control of an administration that so willingly and freely dispenses with hard earned ratepayer funds. The other really significant question that needs to be answered is: If the owner of the property did not bear the name of Penhalluriack, would this situation ever have got to the stage it did?
March 11, 2014 at 8:50 PM
The answer to your last question is obviously a big fat no. Add to it the up coming Council election and the Leader coverage Council managed to get and the answer is a bigger fatter resounding no!!!!!.
The time line shows the place was allegedly a rooming house for 7 weeks, prosecution started after it was shut down – its taken Council 2 years of expensive litigation (primarily due to Council’s inept handling) before a decision was made to drop the charges.
Councillors should be held to account – thousands of rate payers money has been spent on this alone. Add to that the ridiculous bullying charges (another waste of ratepayers money) which were also dropped.
What is their justification?
March 11, 2014 at 8:48 PM
I’m being conservative and estimate that lawyers on this have cost around $70 to $80,000.In return they’ve got a big fat zero if the $2000 goes to charity. Heads should roll over this one and all the other trigger happy vendettas that have happened in the recent past.
March 11, 2014 at 10:18 PM
This makes me hopping mad when so much money is chucked out on a wild goose chase and personal vendetta. There’s already been the heaps spent on the fake mulch stuff and the vcat hearings and now this latest bullshit. It doesn’t say a lot about the ability of councils lawyers either if after two years they suddenly realise they have got nothing to go on about Penhalluriack. Why didn’t they see this a lot earlier and stop wasting our money? They also should have known that the maximum penalty would have been chicken feed compared to what they were spending. This was nothing but get the bloke and to hell with what it costs. That’s not the way to run a council that looks after its residents especially when they argue that they won’t go to court over developers not doing what the permits say they have to do. It’s one set of rules for everyone else and a different set of rules for Newton and no accountability. If councillors shut up on this one then they are as much to blame and should be held responsible. They’re supposed to be the looking after the way money is spent and they’re not doing it.
March 12, 2014 at 2:07 AM
Why on earth would lawyers like Maddocks say they thought the chase was invalid? That would have cost a loss of income.
Frank should now go for defamation on several issues.
March 12, 2014 at 6:59 AM
3 years ago Council shut down two rooming houses that had been operating for about 4 years. These were backpacker rooming house’s that were squalid, firetraps. Residents (I was one) had complained for years about overcrowding, noise, drunken all night parties and the smell of hashish around and got nowhere: Council always had an excuse at the ready. Council only acted when residents got the Age to send in an undercover reporter and write a full page expose.
I can’t help contrasting this experience with what is emerging now over the Penhalluriack case and asking myself if this falls within Council’s role acting in the best interests of residents and just what Councillors think they are their for.
March 12, 2014 at 4:12 PM
Maddox, is’nt who Tang works for, this make sense more really bad advise from the Gang.