By Callum Goode, Aap, and Cam Lucadou-Wells
A long-delayed corruption watchdog report into planning decisions at Casey Council is set to be published within days after a late bid to block it failed.
Millionaire property developer John Woodman on Monday sought permission to appeal an earlier Supreme Court ruling dismissing his request to stop the release of the Operation Sandon report.
But his case was thrown out by a three-justice bench in the Victorian Court of Appeal after about an hour of arguments.
It’s expected that the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission will release the report on Thursday 27 July, although Mr Woodman could still take his fight to the High Court.
Mr Woodman was publicly examined across six days of public hearings in November 2019 as part of the watchdog’s probe into corrupt conduct involving councillors and property developers in the City of Casey.
The inquiry heard Mr Woodman or his companies donated to both major political parties ahead of the 2018 election and he increased a donation to Cranbourne Labor MP Pauline Richards as she was willing to support rezoning land in Cranbourne West, a claim Ms Richards denies.
Lawyers for Mr Woodman on Monday claimed the watchdog breached the IBAC Act and caused him “unreasonable damage“ by examining him in public.
“Any report by the IBAC purporting to contain answers given by Mr Woodman and any comment or conclusions in the report based on such answers is not authorised under the IBAC Act, is prepared in breach of the provisions of the IBAC Act, and is invalid and ineffective,“ their submission read.
“In his prayer for relief, Mr Woodman seeks interlocutory and final orders, including an injunction restraining the publication of the impending IBAC report and damages resulting from the reputational damage caused by his public examination.“
In response, the watchdog argued none of Mr Woodman’s grounds for appeal had any merits.
The IBAC Act states an examination can be held in public if there are “exceptional circumstances“, it is in the public interest and won’t cause “unreasonable damage“ to a person’s reputation, safety or wellbeing.
The Supreme Court last year blocked the watchdog from tabling its final report into Operation Sandon after Mr Woodman claimed he wasn’t given a reasonable opportunity to respond to a draft report.
The court ordered IBAC to provide footnotes supporting adverse findings made against him, allowing the developer further time to respond.
IBAC’s submissions allege Mr Woodman provided his response in January but he sought a fresh injunction in May after becoming aware of media stories that the report’s delivery to parliament was imminent.
The primary judge dismissed the case, citing the lawyer for Mr Woodman having raised no issue when informed of IBAC’s decision to examine him in public and the “egregious and unexplained“ three-and-a-half year delay in his complaint.
Justice Cameron Macaulay took Mr Woodman’s barrister Gerard Nash KC to task over that point.
“In 2022 you were complaining about the fruit of a public examination process, namely a draft report, when it now appears you maintain the public examination process should never have occurred,“ he said.
“So you complained about the fruit in 2022; now you say the plant should never have been planted.“
Mr Nash replied: “Perhaps, your honour, I didn’t realise the tree was rotten.“
In their ruling, the judges stated none of Mr Woodman’s six grounds had “any merit”.
This included Mr Woodman arguing he was denied procedural fairness by IBAC in its decision to publicly examine him.
The judges noted Mr Woodman had made no application to IBAC for a private hearing, although the option was open to him.
Nor had he raised a “perceived specific unreasonable harm” to his reputation prior or during the IBAC hearing.
“There is no explanation for the applicant’s (prior) failure to raise the public examination point now sought to be ventilated…” the judges stated.
Mr Woodman was represented by two counsel at IBAC and at least three solicitors who had corresponded with IBAC prior to the public hearing, the judges noted.
Counsel for Mr Woodman declined to comment.
