Mr Murphy, 60, completed the back of the summons notice, and ticked a box indicating he had a debt but added the debt had since been paid. Unbeknownst to the retiree, ticking the box meant a summary court judgment would be entered in favour of the city and the debt would automatically be referred to credit rating agencies. As a result, Mr Murphy was charged a $300 summons fee by the council, a bill he didn't believe he should foot as he had paid his rates bill prior to being served. Four years passed and the retired businessmen continued to pay his rates, but refused to pay the amount of the additional summons fee which had become a permanent fixture on his annual bill, growing each year with interest to eventually reach more than $700. He claimed the council never contacted him about the outstanding debt.

In 2017, unaware of the ramifications of ticking the debt box on his summons notice, the Murphys attempted to buy an investment property but were declined a loan due to their poor credit rating. Mr Murphy enquired and after realising the poor rating stemmed from his 2013 late rates bill, he applied to the Magistrates Court to have the original 2014 judgment set aside. Magistrate Matthew Walton found in Mr Murphy's favour and dismissed the original proceedings and set aside the judgment, therefore wiping Mr Murphy's debt for the summons bill, but ordered he pay the council $150 for the cost of the claim. The City of Stirling spent around $5,000 defending its case during this initial hearing. "The judge said to me, 'Would you agree to pay $150 costs?', and I said yes I would just to make the whole thing go away because I could see it was getting out of hand," Mr Murphy said.

The ordeal, however, was far from over, with the City of Stirling appealing the decision to wipe Mr Murphy's debt in the District Court. A self-represented Mr Murphy said the city wasted thousands of dollars and resources pursuing a matter which stemmed from him ticking the wrong box on a summons notice. "[If I had engaged a lawyer to represent me] it's a possibility the council could have spent $20,000 to $30,000 in their efforts to gain $300 - a debt which for four years was sitting there and they never negotiated with me," he said. "It's a waste of ratepayer's money, it's ludicrous. "What commercial business would have done that procedure if they were playing with their own money?"

Mr Murphy said during the District Court hearing he feared the case was leaning in the city's favour, which would have left him responsible for footing their legal bill. "It was common sense that [the case] went my way, but on technicalities they could have won," he said. "I'm outraged by it and so is everyone I talk to about it. "I went along to court many times, I put a lot of time and effort into it and I got nothing, I'm just happy it's over." In her District Court judgment on Thursday, Judge Julie Wager struck out the City of Stirling's appeal against the Magistrates Court's decision to withdraw its original judgment against the Murphys.

Her judgment remarks included details the council had spent around $5,000 on defending the Magistrates Court matter, and a "further significant sum" on its appeal in the District Court. "The costs of the appeal are disproportionate to the claim," the judgment read. The City of Stirling, during court proceedings, claimed it was using the case against the Murphys as a "test case" because it put through thousands of rates notices every year. "Counsel raises concerns that some magistrates dismiss judgments for debts in situations that are very similar to the Murphys' position when others do not," the judgment read. "The City of Stirling seeks clarity and considers it is reasonable to incur the costs of bringing the matter on appeal because of the need for clarity."

The City of Stirling declined to comment or confirm how much money it had spent pursuing legal action against the Murphys. The Minister for Local Government has been contacted for comment.