MORE AND MORE QUESTIONS FOR LAUNCESTON'S TOWN HALL

An ongoing saga about the purchase of the Launceston Myer carpark is likely to drag into 2022 following the Federal Court of Australia hearing a near-five-hour case detailing prolonged and "curious" interactions. 

The case between Creative Property Holdings and Car Parks Super was heard on Friday, and such was the convoluted nature of the submissions the presiding Justice remarked it would be "unthinkable" for him to have made a determination before being led through the circumstances. ..................... The court heard of a contract disagreement that first started in June 2020 that was still not resolved when legal proceedings commenced almost a year later, and that those legal proceedings now hinged on the objective interpretation of one "critical document". ..................... That "critical document" was an email between conveyancing lawyers for CPH and CPS on November 20 last year detailing the requirements for a contract, the third contract about the sale, was finalised. ..................... Legal representative for CPH, the group purchasing the car park, Chris Gunson SC told Justice David O'Callaghan his client was confident a contract regarding the sale had initially been entered into, and that contract had never been broken despite ongoing grievances and concerns being worked through. ..................... The court heard that contract was for the sale of 41-43 Paterson Street, the Myer car park, for $12 million with a deposit of $1.2 million set to be paid. ..................... The deposit became a point of contention through the course of the Friday hearing, with Mr Gunson telling the court it was proof of a continual contract throughout the back-and-forth between the two parties. ..................... He told the court that the deposit had then been withheld and released in "bad faith", before being released once legal proceedings had commenced "for no reason other than to bolster an assertion the deposit had never been paid". ..................... Legal representative for CPS, the group selling the car park, Shaun McElwaine SC was adamant the deposit had been forfeited to his client due to a contract breach by CPS. ..................... "Your Honour should find there was a material breach of their [Creative Property Holdings'] contract in the failure to pay the deposit [in the timeframe]," Mr McElwaine said. ..................... He said the failure came as a result of "completion [not being] achieved on a stipulated date". ..................... "That amounts to a fundamental breach, it justifies termination ... the deposit in that event is forfeited to the vendor," he said. ..................... Mr McElwaine told the court that forfeiture related to a June contract that "was never signed by the vendor", but was signed by CPS and the council. ..................... The court heard two other contracts were at least floated in October and November. ..................... The court heard the $1.2 million deposit was initially paid by the City of Launceston Council, acting as guarantor for Creative Property Holdings, but the council started to "lose its enthusiasm for settlement or its ongoing involvement" and "demanded the return of the deposit". ..................... Despite the deposit debate, the main point of contention put forward by Mr Gunson and Mr McElwaine was a dispute between whether or not a formal contract had ben maintained throughout the continued squabble. ..................... Mr Gunson told the court when legal representatives for the council sent through a contract by the close of business on November 24 through which council acted as guarantor for the car park's purchase, as detailed by the "critical document", "everything that had been sought ... had been done in the terms proposed". ..................... "We say at that point a binding contract came into existence," Mr Gunson said. Mr Gunson detailed to the court a relatively cavalier approach to contract negotiations that resulted in the November 20 email marking a finalisation of an agreement to purchase, which otherwise would have to have been subject to a "ceremonial exchange of contracts". ..................... He told the court that a formal exchange was merely "an administrative formality". ..................... Mr McElwaine detailed how language used in contract negotiations had not been cavalier, and instead had been typical of conveyancing law. ..................... He told the court without the formal exchange of specific contractual documents, there had been no contract. ..................... He told the court, as a result, the November 20 email should not have been misrepresented by CPH as constituting a legitimate exchange of contract. ..................... Justice O'Callaghan said he would preside over what he had heard through the court sitting, but that it was unlikely he would reach a decision before early next year.

The car park at the centre of a Federal Court battle was not the target of compulsory acquisition by the state government, owners were assured last year. ... The advice that "the Crown is not seeking to compulsorily acquire this property" came in correspondence to Car Park Super directors Don and Janet Allen dated November 25, 2020. ..................... The Examiner has sighted the correspondence. ..................... Car Parks Super own the Paterson Street Central car park which is the proposed site for a Creative Precinct. ..................... Creative Property Holdings, the company which proposed the precinct, is taking legal action against Car Parks Super in the Federal Court. ..................... Despite extensive ongoing negotiations between the parties since June last year, no sale was ever finalised. ..................... In recent correspondence sighted by The Examiner, CPH said: "CPH is doing all it can in an effort to rearrange its financing proposals, but as of this time has not been able to arrange its finances in such a way as to place it in a position where an unconditional offer can be put". ..................... The company said that an offer on terms more favourable than previously proposed by CPH was creating "significant difficulty". Federal Court documents reveal contracts were proposed at a price of $12 million last year. ..................... The state government has provided a $6 million interest free loan to the council for use in the proposed development and federal government funds of about $17.5 million are available. ..................... State Growth Minister Roger Jaensch said: "I understand the property remains the subject to a contract for sale and that there is currently a legal process underway between the vendor and private developer". ..................... "Any acquisition of land by the Crown is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1993." Under the act, compulsory acquisition is possible for public purposes including transport and education. ..................... When asked about compulsory acquisition, Launceston Mayor Albert van Zetten said the council was eager to see a strategic, higher order use for the site as soon as possible. ..................... "However, the acquisition of the site is currently before the federal court and we expect a resolution in the near future," he said. "Until that time it would be inappropriate to provide further comment or engage in hypotheticals." ..................... Justice David O'Callaghan has extended five times since June 8, 2021 the time for the applicant (CPH) to file and serve its written submissions. The last extension was to 4pm yesterday. CPH director Chris Billing did not provide an update.