At Tuesday night’s meeting, mayor Marianne Saliba successfully urged a majority of councillors to vote to “pursue the current legal action in the Land and Environment Court to the fullest extent”.

On April 26, councillors voted to seek an injunction against the merger until legal proceedings from Woollahra council were resolved. This was successful last week, stopping the government’s merger announcement at the eleventh hour.

But this week Cr Saliba said the council needed to give their lawyers permission to develop a case separate to Woollahra’s action.

“We need to really be focused on who we are as a community, how we’ve been treated by the state government and where there may have been any errors in law,” she said.

“We will be blaming ourselves for years to come if we don’t do everything that we can to stop [the merger].”

Helen Stewart – one of two councillors who voted against Cr Saliba’s motion – asked how much the case would cost, but general manager Carey McIntyre said this was not known as the legal action would be “ongoing”.

When pressed on Wednesday and asked what had been spent on lawyers so far, council staff told the Mercury: “Council does not have an estimate of the cost to pursue legal action because it is dependent upon the unknown quantities of time and resources required to address the matter in the court”.

Councillor Peter Moran spoke strongly against the beefed up legal action, saying he opposed a merger but worried the un-costed legal battle had “echoes” of a controversial council case in 2007 .

Back then, the council waged a multimillion-dollar battle against two councillors – including Cr Stewart – over allegations the pair breached the Local Government Act by leaking documents.

The case took eight months and cost the council about $20,000 a day in legal costs during the hearings.

Cr Moran also said he thought Tuesday night’s motion would give “retrospective ratification” to a legal fight which had already started (and been partially paid for).

“When we voted on April 26 it was to have an injunction, but this is about developing a legal case which goes well beyond that and might be fought well beyond that and cost a lot more money,” he said.

Mr McIntyre said the council’s legal team had advised that all action they had taken so far was consistent with the councillors’ April 26 motion.

Speaking in support of the mayor’s motion, Labor councillor John Murray said the legal action was an “unfolding situation”, meaning council staff should be allowed to develop and run a case separate to Woollahra’s action. 

Reacting to a Mercury story about the meeting on Wednesday, a number of online readers raised concerns about the cost of the legal battle.

“If Shellharbour council want to fight the merger that's up to them, but don't use taxpayer’s money to do it, they should use their own personal money,” Mercury website commentator “Shaun” said.

“It’s really easy to stand up for something and promise to fight to the bitter end and then give the bill to ratepayers; the purpose of rates is to pay for public services.”

Similarly, a commentator posting under the pseudonym “NO MORE!!!” wrote: “Its not their money but they spend it like there's no limit to it, more evidence that these people should go stop the waste you've already been sacked!!!!! [sic]”.

But “Proud Shellharbour Resident” argued they “would rather see Shellharbour Council spend my rates money to fight the government and standalone [than] be taken over and ruled by Wollongong and a pro liberal administrator for 16 months [sic]”.

“If anyone is of the belief that a merged council will improve anything and save money is truly [delusional]. There is far more evidence showing that larger councils perform worse [than] before they have merged.”