The council's defence claimed Mr Eldridge's behaviour in the job was "outrageous" and marked by "dishonesty and deceit", such as leaving work to attend a non-existent family funeral.

The NSW Supreme Court on Friday heard from both sides of the lawsuit. Mr Eldridge is seeking more than $1 million from the council.

Mr Eldridge's senior counsel, John Fernon, said the former GM had been "rock-solid" in his evidence that he was never aware his son's land rezoning proposal on Inglewood Road at Gumly had come before the council.

A February 2017 story in The Daily Advertiser about claims the then general manager had an undisclosed conflict of interest in the proposal led to Mr Eldridge being stood down before his contract was terminated by councillor vote.

In other news

Council's defence senior counsel, Robert Goot, said it defied belief that Mr Eldridge was unaware given he had "skin in the game" via lending his son money for the project and had multiple emails and meetings involving Inglewood Road.

The hearings for the former general manager's lawsuit ran for two weeks at Wagga courthouse.

Supreme Court Justice Andrew Bell on Friday reserved judgement and said he expected to hand down his decision within the next two to three weeks.

Justice Bell thanked both legal teams for presenting a "huge volume of material" with "civility and skill".

Earlier in Friday's hearing, Mr Fernon submitted that Mr Eldridge denied allegations of serious misconduct, and any claims he did accept did not "rise to the level of summary dismissal".

Mr Fernon said Mr Eldridge had been "absolutely consistent" that he did not know about his son's real estate project being before the council while being examined over four consecutive "long days" in the witness box.

Justice Bell asked Mr Goot why claims of non-consecutive absences at work should be grounds for summary dismissal.

Mr Goot said Mr Eldridge's "complete fiction" about needing to go to a funeral instead of work demonstrated his attitude.

"It is the mark of a man. It crosses so many lines of his contract," Mr Goot said.

Justice Bell asked Mr Fernon why he should consider Mr Eldridge to be a "candid" witness after he challenged his own testimony by claiming to have found documents that contradicted defence exhibits.

"Was he trying to create a smokescreen? Was he trying to cast doubt?" Justice Bell asked.

Mr Fernon replied that Mr Eldridge was simply "concerned" after discovering material that questioned his prior evidence given under oath.

The Eldridge case so far

Mr Goot went through the list of Mr Eldridge's encounters with the Inglewood Road project and referred to an affidavit by former council commercial operations director Caroline Angel.

Ms Angel claimed Mr Eldridge phoned her to say "at least you're the only one that had the balls to speak to me about ... Inglewood Road".

Mr Eldridge had previously, in the witness box, denied the call ever took place, saying he would never say the word "balls" to an employee.

Mr Goot submitted that the council was justified in summarily dismissing Mr Eldridge for "serious misconduct" but if Justice Bell found otherwise then damages paid should be limited to 38 weeks' pay instead of the 2.5 years sought by Mr Eldridge.

Mr Fernon submitted that Justice Bell should, when calculating any damages, consider the possibility that Mr Eldridge could have received another contract to work as general manager if he was not dismissed in 2017.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: