A LEDBURY town councillor who vehemently denies having bullied or harassed staff has triumphed in a High Court challenge.

In a case that exposed the "history of friction" within Ledbury Town Council, a judge ruled that Councillor Elizabeth Harvey had not been fairly treated.

Defence research scientist and former civil servant, Cllr Harvey was elected to the council in 2011, said Mrs Justice Cockerill.

Cllr Harvey sat on the council's finance and environment committees and was chair of its planning committee.

But, in 2015, the then town clerk complained that she had been subjected to bullying, harassment and intimidation by Cllr Harvey.

The deputy town clerk made similar claims, but Councillor Harvey refuted all their accusations.

Following a grievance process, however, the council in May 2016 upheld the complaints against her, the court heard.

But a separate Code of Conduct investigation, carried out by Herefordshire Council, ruled that Cllr Harvey had not been in breach of the Code, which governs how councillors must treat others.

Justice Cockerill said that Ledbury Town Council should have taken this into consideration.

But Councillor Harvey was, amongst other things, banned from sitting on any of the town council's committees or other panels.

She was also told not to communicate with the clerk or deputy clerk other than through the mayor, or deputy mayor.

She said the restrictions had "hollowed out a core part of my councillor role" and severely impeded her ability to represent her constituents.

In May last year, the full council ruled that the restrictions on Councillor Harvey should be "continued and enlarged".

Upholding her judicial review challenge to that decision, the judge pinpointed "flaws" in the council's approach.

Rather than adopting its own grievance process, the council was legally obliged to follow the procedures laid down by the Localism Act 2011.

What the council did was "contrary to the intention of Parliament" and beyond its powers, the judge ruled.

Councillor Harvey had been given no proper opportunity to respond and the decision was also "substantively unfair".

The council had simply not engaged with whether the sanctions imposed were balanced or whether less intrusive measures would suffice.

Mrs Justice Cockerill emphasised that the case had "nothing to do with party politics" or the "merits" of the council's decision.

She added: "I have no reason to believe that anyone involved has acted otherwise than in what they thought to be the best interests of their local area and the employees of the council."

But, overturning the decision, the judge concluded: "It does seem to me that the process was in substance flawed, both procedurally and substantively."