There is a looming cloud over integrity and credibility in Launceston

 

Judge finds no binding car park sale contract existed 

 Nick Clark ... Local News  ...  IMAGE An early simulation of the Creative Precinct vision 

 A $90 million Creative Precinct in the Launceston CBD is in doubt after the proponent failed in a legal bid to have a $12 million contract for the sale of the key Paterson Street car park enforced. ..................... Federal Court of Australia Justice David O'Callaghan dismissed a claim by Creative Property Holdings that there was ever a binding contract with the car park owner, Car Parks Super in November last year. ..................... He ordered CPH to pay costs. ..................... Parties were given seven days to make submissions about a $1.2 million deposit that was paid and then shunted between solicitors for the parties. ..................... "It is not altogether clear [to me] where and by whom monies representing the deposit are currently held, or even whether there is any disagreement about the question of refunding it," Justice O'Callaghan said ..................... The car park at 41-43 Paterson Street, known as the Birchalls car park, was to be the site of the Creative Precinct facilitated by CPH director Christopher Billing and the idea attracted the support of at least $20 million in federal and state government funding. ..................... The City of Launceston council was the guarantor for the obligations of Mr Billing for early proposed car park contracts in June and September last year. ..................... Mr Billing said he was disappointed with the decision relating to the specific claim presented to the court. ..................... "[CPH] and its stakeholders will now be considering all its legal options as well alternative sites for the Creative Precinct," he said. ..................... Car Park Super Pty Ltd director Don Allen said: "We are pleased to hear that the judgement confirmed that there was no contract in existence for the sale of our car park property and that there was no case proven for misleading conduct". ..................... Launceston mayor Albert van Zetten said the City of Launceston would now consider a number of options. ..................... "This will occur over the coming weeks and we will have more to say in due course," he said. ..................... "In regards to the creative precinct itself, that's a matter for Creative Property Holdings." ..................... Cr van Zetten said the council maintained its view that a centrally located bus interchange was an important strategic objective for the city. ..................... Discussion of council options has included compulsory acquisition. ..................... Justice O'Callaghan said that "both the applicant and the respondent at various different times seemed to have lacked enthusiasm to complete the transaction". ..................... He said that no binding contract was deemed to have been completed because there was no exchange of counterpart contracts in what was a "well-known, common and customary method of dealing". ..................... Justice O'Callghan said the parties argued the case by reference to an agreed bundle of documents and a hearing in October. ..................... "No witnesses were called," he said. ..................... "The applicant sought to rely on an affidavit of Christopher Billing dated 28 September 2021, but his evidence was irrelevant because it went to the deponent's subjective intentions." ..................... "I accordingly declined to admit it into evidence. The parties agreed that the relevant intention of the parties is to be determined objectively on the basis of the exchanged correspondence."