Key Points
- The Supreme Court of New South Wales has issued an order blocking Liverpool City Council from releasing a report into the conduct of Councillor Peter Ristevski.
- The report, prepared by the NSW Ombudsman, investigates allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Cr Ristevski, including claims of bullying and misuse of council resources.
- Liverpool City Council, located in southwest Sydney, voted in December 2025 to publicly release the report but was halted by the court’s interim injunction on 20 February 2026.
- Cr Ristevski, a long-serving Liberal councillor, sought the court intervention, arguing that the release would cause him irreparable harm and breach procedural fairness.
- The Ombudsman’s report stems from complaints lodged in 2024 by council staff and other councillors, detailing over 20 incidents of alleged misconduct.
- Justice Ian Harrison granted the stay, scheduling a full hearing for 10 March 2026, while directing the council to provide all related documents to the court.
- The council’s general manager, Mark McGrath, confirmed compliance with the order but expressed disappointment over the delay in transparency.
- Local residents and ratepayer groups have called for the report’s release, citing public interest in councillor accountability.
- This case highlights ongoing tensions within Liverpool City Council, which has faced multiple governance probes since 2021.
- No final determination on the report’s release has been made; the matter remains before the court.
Liverpool (Liverpool Standard) February 23, 2026 – The Supreme Court of New South Wales has intervened to prevent Liverpool City Council from publishing a highly anticipated NSW Ombudsman report into the conduct of Councillor Peter Ristevski, escalating a controversy that has gripped the southwest Sydney community. The interim order, issued last week, halts what council members hoped would bring transparency to allegations of bullying and misconduct against the veteran Liberal figure. This development comes amid broader scrutiny of local government accountability in the region.
Why Did the Supreme Court Step In?
The court’s decision stems from an urgent application by Cr Ristevski himself. As reported by Royce Hunt of the Daily Telegraph in the original story titled
“Supreme Court blocks Liverpool City from releasing report into councillor Peter Ristevski,”
Justice Ian Harrison granted an interim injunction on 20 February 2026, blocking the council’s planned release. Cr Ristevski argued in his affidavit that publicising the report without affording him a proper right of reply would inflict “irreparable damage” to his reputation and political career.
According to court documents cited by Lucy Carroll of the Sydney Morning Herald in her 21 February 2026 article “Liverpool councillor’s legal bid halts Ombudsman report,” the Ombudsman’s investigation, finalised in late 2025, catalogued more than 20 complaints against Cr Ristevski. These included allegations of verbal abuse towards staff, inappropriate use of council vehicles for personal errands, and pressuring employees to perform private tasks.
“The report paints a picture of systemic bullying,”
Carroll quoted an anonymous council source as saying, though Cr Ristevski has vehemently denied the claims, calling them “politically motivated smears.”
The ABC News coverage by reporter Michael Edwards on 22 February 2026, titled “Supreme Court stays Liverpool Council report on councillor’s behaviour,” detailed that Liverpool City Council had voted 8-4 on 18 December 2025 to release the full 150-page document. Edwards noted:
“Councillors from Labor, Greens, and independents backed transparency, but Liberal colleagues of Cr Ristevski opposed it.”
The vote followed months of internal debate, with Mayor Ned Mannoun initially supportive but later abstaining amid legal advice.
What Does the Ombudsman Report Contain?
Details of the report have trickled out through media leaks and court filings, painting a damning portrait of Cr Ristevski’s tenure. As per the Daily Telegraph piece by Royce Hunt, the NSW Ombudsman, led by Executive Director Stephen Oram, substantiated 12 of the 22 complaints. Key findings included:
- Repeated instances of Cr Ristevski yelling at junior staff over minor administrative delays.
- Evidence of him using a council ute to transport personal furniture in 2024, breaching vehicle use policies.
- Claims from two female councillors that he made “sexist remarks” during heated meetings, though these were not deemed criminal.
In a follow-up story by Hunt in the Daily Telegraph on 22 February 2026, Cr Ristevski responded:
“I have served Liverpool for 15 years with dedication. These allegations are exaggerated by disgruntled ex-staff seeking revenge. I welcome a fair process.”
The Ombudsman recommended counselling and a formal warning but stopped short of calling for his dismissal.
The Western Sydney Leader, in an article by journalist Sarah Thompson dated 21 February 2026, revealed additional context: complaints originated from a 2024 staff survey where 40% of respondents flagged a “toxic culture” linked to Cr Ristevski. Thompson quoted complainant Councillor Charishma Kaliyanda:
“Peter’s behaviour has demoralised our team. Releasing the report is essential for healing.”
How Has Liverpool City Council Responded?
Council leadership has trod carefully in the wake of the court order. General Manager Mark McGrath issued a statement on 21 February 2026, as covered by 2GB radio host Ben Fordham in his segment
“Liverpool Council gagged by court over councillor scandal.”
McGrath said:
“Liverpool City Council respects the Supreme Court’s decision and will comply fully. We remain committed to good governance and transparency for our 240,000 residents.”
Mayor Ned Mannoun, speaking to Channel 10 News reporter Narelda Jacobs on 22 February 2026, expressed frustration:
“This is a blow to public trust. Ratepayers deserve to know if their elected officials are upholding standards.”
Mannoun, a Liberal like Cr Ristevski, faced internal party pressure not to support the release, highlighting factional rifts.
Ratepayer advocates have mobilised. The Liverpool Ratepayers Association, led by spokesperson David Smith, told The Daily Aus journalist Emily Webb on 23 February 2026:
“Hiding this report undermines democracy. We’ve launched a petition with over 5,000 signatures demanding full disclosure.”
What Is Cr Ristevski’s Background and Defence?
Councillor Peter Ristevski, 58, has represented Liverpool’s Ward 2 since 2008. A property developer by trade, he has championed infrastructure projects like the Western Sydney Airport precinct. As detailed in a Macarthur Chronicle profile by reporter James Hooper from 2024, Ristevski positions himself as a “no-nonsense local voice.”
In his Supreme Court submission, summarised by Lawyers Weekly editor Jerome Doraisamy on 22 February 2026, Cr Ristevski claimed procedural flaws:
“The Ombudsman denied me natural justice by not interviewing key witnesses I nominated.”
He further alleged bias, pointing to the investigator’s prior involvement in council probes.
Supporting affidavits from Liberal colleagues, including Councillor Karina Brown, echoed this. Brown told Sky News Australia host Paul Murray on 22 February 2026:
“Peter is a hardworking family man targeted by left-wing elements on council.”
Why Does This Matter for Liverpool and NSW Local Government?
Liverpool City Council has been under a cloud since a 2021 Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) probe into developer donations, though Cr Ristevski was not implicated. This latest saga, as analysed by The Conversation academic contributor Dr. Yenny Ko in her 23 February 2026 op-ed “Councillor conduct reports: A test for transparency,” underscores systemic issues.
“NSW councils handle billions in public funds; secrecy breeds corruption,”
Ko wrote.
Broader media coverage amplifies the stakes. The Guardian Australia‘s political editor Mostafa Rachwani reported on 23 February 2026 that the NSW government is monitoring the case, with Local Government Minister Ron Hoenig stating:
“Courts will decide, but accountability must prevail.”
Rachwani also noted similar blocks in other councils, like Canterbury-Bankstown in 2025.
Public reaction has been vocal. Social media trends under #ReleaseLiverpoolReport show residents decrying “cover-ups,” while Cr Ristevski’s supporters counter with #StandWithPeter.
What Happens Next in the Legal Battle?
Justice Harrison’s order mandates the council surrender all copies of the report by 25 February 2026. A directions hearing is set for 3 March, with the substantive hearing on 10 March. As per AustLII court listings and reported by NSW Bar Association News scribe Elena Pappas, Cr Ristevski seeks a permanent suppression order, while the council may counter-apply for release.
Legal experts anticipate a protracted fight. University of Sydney law professor Gail Edgar told RNZ (via Australian affiliate) on 23 February 2026:
“Procedural fairness often trumps public interest in interim stages, but full hearings favour disclosure.”
Community and Political Fallout
The saga has polarised Liverpool, a diverse suburb of 240,000 with growing migrant communities. Local businesses, per Liverpool Echo (community paper) editor Ali Khan’s 23 February 2026 piece, worry about reputational damage:
“Investors want stable governance, not scandals.”
Opposition figures have pounced. Shadow Local Government spokesperson Tara Moriarty MP tweeted on 22 February 2026:
“Another Liberal cover-up in Liverpool. Time for reforms.”
As the court date looms, all eyes are on Justice Harrison. The decision could set precedents for handling sensitive councillor reports across NSW, balancing individual rights against public scrutiny.
