FORMER City of Whittlesea mayor Aidan McLindon’s court case victory in June over former Minister for Local Government Nick Staikos has seen a further update, with Cr McLindon now suing Mr Staikos, as reported in the Herald Sun.
Cr McLindon has launched further legal proceedings after the June case found his suspension from council in 2025, which ended his stint as Mayor, was ruled to be invalid by the Victorian Supreme Court.
The case stems from Cr McLindon being stood down for six months in April 2025 following accusations of intimidation and poor conduct, which McLindon consistently denied.
After returning to council in October 2025, Cr McLindon took legal action against Mr Staikos, and the court ruled that his suspension was invalid in June.
The court had found that Cr McLindon ‘was not afforded procedural fairness’ in the Monitor’s Report, as he wasn’t provided with an opportunity to respond to proposed findings, or that he was provided sufficient details of alleged racist, homophobic and transphobic public statements, including an allegation that he targeted a First Nations councillor.
“The summary of proposed adverse findings which the Monitors provided to Mr McLindon gave no detail or information about Mr McLindon’s alleged public statements which were said to be homophobic or transphobic. Save for referring to Mr McLindon’s alleged self-identification as a ‘brother to First Nations people’, the summary of proposed adverse findings gave no other detail or information about Mr McLindon’s alleged public statements which were said to be racist,” court documents read from the June case.
“In the summary of proposed adverse findings, the Monitors referred ‘to a range of social media comments’ said to have been made by Mr McLindon which were ‘widely viewed as racist, homophobic and transphobic’. There is no evidence that the Monitors provided Mr McLindon with copies of this social media commentary. Neither did they direct his attention to his particular comments, whether exhaustively or by way of illustration, which were objectionable. As a consequence, Mr McLindon was not informed of the adverse material which was ‘widely viewed as racist, homophobic and transphobic’ and thereby denied an opportunity to deal with that material. In this way, Mr McLindon was not provided with a sufficient opportunity to respond to the proposed finding raised by the Monitors as required by s181C(1)(b) of the Act.
“In summary, Mr McLindon was not afforded procedural fairness by the Monitors in the preparation of the Monitor’s Report because, in contravention of the obligations imposed upon them by s181C(1) of the Act, they did not provide him with any, or any sufficient, details of the following proposed findings and an opportunity to respond to same:
“(a) Mr McLindon’s request of the Monitors to be told the names of employees who had made complaints against him as demonstrating his ‘capacity to target individuals through seeking names of those who have formally reported health and safety concerns’;
“(b) the ‘targeting and addressing’ of comments by Mr McLindon to a councillor who is a First Nations person which were ‘most hurtful and distressing to the Councillor’; and
“(c) the making of public statements by Mr McLindon regarded by employees of the Council who are members of the First Nations team and the Pride network, as racist, homophobic and/or transphobic.
“The order made by the Governor in Council under s229A(1) of the Local Government Act 2020 on 15 April 2025 suspending the plaintiff as a councillor of the Whittlesea City Council for a period of 6 months from 16 April 2025 until 16 October 2025 was invalid, as the defendant was not provided with a valid report as required by s229A(2) of the Local Government Act 2020 by reason of the failure by the relevant municipal monitors to comply with s181C of the Local Government Act 2020 in relation to proposed adverse findings in relation to the plaintiff.”
