NSW Supreme Court justice Andrew Bell handed down his judgment on Wednesday afternoon, stating that the council "was both fully entitled to and justified in summarily dismissing Mr Eldridge" in 2017 "on the basis of a number of serious and persistent breaches".

Mr Eldridge had sought a payout equal to the two-and-a-half years remaining of his general manager contract, which had a remuneration of $395,000 per year, as damages.

Justice Bell found that "no question of damages arises" and "there should be judgment for the defendant council".

"Mr Eldridge is ordered to pay the council's costs," his Honour stated.

Mr Eldridge filed a lawsuit against Wagga City Council in the NSW Supreme Court in 2018 after a meeting of councillors voted to summarily terminate his contract in May 2017.

The council claimed at the time that Mr Eldridge did not disclose his potential conflict of interest via his son's involvement in a Gumly real estate proposal that had applied for a rezoning.

"Mr Eldridge displayed a brazen indifference to his obligations fully and properly to disclose his and his family's interests, and misled the council in October 2016 in confirming that all declarations of pecuniary interests by Designated Persons had been completed, when he knew full well that he himself had not completed such a disclosure," Justice Bell stated.

The council relied on multiple other reasons for why Mr Eldridge was sacked without a notice period or further payments, including details staff were not aware of in 2017, but Justice Bell did not accept all of these defences.

"The use of council letterhead to issue a press release relating on one view to his own position, and one claimed expense which was in truth personal in nature rather than for council purposes would not, in and of themselves, have warranted Mr Eldridge's dismissal," his honour stated.

While Justice Bell found that council was overall justified overall in sacking Mr Eldridge without further payment, he did not accept that all the stated reasons in and of themselves would warrant contract termination.

"The use of council letterhead to issue a press release relating on one view to his own position, and one claimed expense which was in truth personal in nature rather than for council purposes would not, in and of themselves, have warranted Mr Eldridge's dismissal," his Honour stated.

The Supreme Court, sitting at Wagga courthouse, spent two weeks on hearings in March in which Wagga mayor Greg Conkey, council staff, councillors and Mr Eldridge's past business associates appeared as witnesses.

During the hearings, Mr Eldridge had denied being specifically aware that his son's real estate proposal had come before council and his senior counsel, John Fernon, challenged witnesses who testified this was not true.

In Wednesday's judgment, Justice Bell rejected Mr Eldridge's claims not to have had advanced knowledge.

"Contrary to his claims, I have found that Mr Eldridge well knew of his son's involvement with the Inglewood Road Planning Proposal long before he first claimed to have become aware of it in mid-February 2017 and had in fact underwritten his son's financial involvement in a joint venture with a landowner ... to secure Council's approval for its rezoning, subdivision and development.

"Not only did Mr Eldridge not declare this interest at any time prior to February 17, 2017 notwithstanding that the Proposal came before both the Council, its Strategy and Policy Committee and its staff including Mr Eldridge on a number of occasions in 2016 ... but when the issue of a conflict was raised with him on or about 16 February 2017, he falsely claimed to have been hitherto unaware of his son's involvement," his Honour stated.

Eldridge case coverage

Wagga mayor Greg Conkey, who had testified during the lawsuit's hearing this month, issued a statement on Wednesday welcoming the Supreme Court decision.

"Council welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the summary termination of Alan Eldridge as General Manager was appropriate to the circumstances," Cr Conkey said.

"Council has long since moved forward from this issue and the completion of the court action commenced by the former General Manager hopefully marks the conclusion to that issue.

"Council acknowledges the Supreme Court for travelling to Wagga for the purposes of the hearing which enabled the community to have direct access to the court process and the evidence presented."

Mr Fernon previously told the court that Mr Eldridge was not aware at the time that his son's business proposal had come before council and had not committed a "hanging offence" to justify immediate sacking.

Mr Eldridge himself spent the longest time on the stand, giving evidence over the course of four consecutive days.

Justice Bell on Wednesday ordered Mr Eldridge to pay the council's legal costs and said: "In accepting his appointment to the council, Mr Eldridge presented himself as one committed to, expert in and cognisant of his responsibilities and indeed obligations to adhere to the regime of corporate governance to which councillors and council officers are subject.

"His failure to adhere to those obligations was serious and not trivial."

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: