A significant class action lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Australia's NSW division, stemming from its catastrophic failure to nominate candidates for the 2024 local council elections, has cleared a major legal hurdle.
Judge Rejects 'Hopeless' Defence Argument
In a ruling delivered on December 18, 2025, NSW Supreme Court Justice Peter Garling found the core claims of the plaintiffs to be 'reasonably arguable'. This decision came after lawyers for the defendants argued the case was 'hopeless and doomed to fail' and should be thrown out.
The legal action was initiated by former Cessnock Liberal councillors John Moores and Paul Paynter. It centres on the party's administrative debacle which saw more than 130 candidates left off the ballot for the 2024 local government elections due to missed nomination deadlines.
The plaintiffs allege that party officials responsible for the nomination process were negligent and breached contractual duties owed to the candidates. The original defendants named in the suit are:
- The Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division
- Bunori Pty Ltd, alleged to be a party management services company
- Former State Director Richard Shields
- Deputy State Director Dorina Ilievska
Expanded Defendant List and Duty of Care
A crucial outcome of Justice Garling's ruling is the permission to add more than 20 members of the Liberal Party's state executive as defendants. This expansion is necessary due to the party's unincorporated status and its internal governance structure, which spreads legal responsibility.
The defendants had contested the existence of any duty of care owed by the state executive members to the plaintiffs. They also disputed the basis of the contract claims. However, Justice Garling was not persuaded that the amended claim would be liable for dismissal.
'I am satisfied that a duty of care existed in the manner pleaded was reasonably arguable, and that the pleading raised a reasonably arguable cause of action in contract and in negligence,' the judge stated in his judgement.
Plaintiffs Seek Justice and Accountability
Speaking after the decision, John Moores said the ruling means 'what happened' to the excluded nominees 'will finally be tested in open court'.
'We were shut out of the democratic process through no fault of our own, and we deserve answers,' Mr Moores said. 'I didn't bring this case lightly. I gave years of service to my community and my party. All I've ever wanted is some justice... and not just for me, but for every candidate who was let down.'
He framed the case as a matter of broader principle: 'This case is about accountability. It's about making sure no group of candidates, from any party, is ever treated as expendable again.'
The court has set a timeline for the next steps. The plaintiffs must file their amended pleading by February 2026, with the matter scheduled for further case management in May 2026. It is important to note that no findings on liability have been made at this stage; the ruling simply allows the case to proceed to a full hearing.
