Hotel owner claims hotel ‘abandoned’ and will countersue council

The owner of a Central Queensland hotel has told a court he intends to countersue Rockhampton Regional Council who has taken him to court over unpaid rates of $200,000.

The owner of a Central Queensland hotel has told a court he intends to countersue Rockhampton Regional Council which has taken him to court over unpaid rates worth $200,000.

He also told the court, through his legal representative, that he intended to have the property, which is classified commercial/industrial by the council, changed to “abandoned” and claimed the new categorisation would mean he didn’t owe council, but council owed him.

James Chang, who owns the Rockhampton Plaza Hotel through his business Chang Holdings, is being sued by the council over unpaid rates, unpaid water bills and legal fees, seeking $209,740.56 for the Rockhampton Plaza Hotel on George Street, which has been closed since 2014.

The matter was mentioned in Rockhampton District Court on Friday, July 23, after Mr Chang was successful in getting an adjournment on June 9 to have a lawyer represent him.

Judge Jeff Clarke confirmed with Mr Chang’s lawyer, Mr Agnew, that the “thrust” of July 23rd’s argument was Mr Chang sought to have the premises re-categorised with council as ‘abandoned’, and for the court to declare the defendant not liable to pay the rates.

“The crux of it is, my client, in my view, has a counterclaim,” Mr Agnew said.

“That counterclaim may well be in the form of a judicial review application to the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the use of the premises has been abandoned and as a consequence, the particular council officer that has been delegated with the power – that’s the (chief executive officer Evan Pardon) of the Rockhampton Regional Council, has erred when identifying my client’s land and categorising it in what’s called, I think, category one – commercial/industrial activity, when it should have been categorised as an alternative category.”

Mr Agnew also asked the court for permission to re-plead the defence and to lodge a counterclaim along those lines and sought an adjournment for that to take place.

“Then you would be in a better position to consider whether there is actually at triable issue or not, and determine this application,” Mr Angew told Judge Clarke.

The court heard the council’s lawyers did not agree with the defence team’s submissions, and there had been no effort made prior to this court date to have the classification for use of the property changed.

Council’s lawyer, Mr Cashin, said there had been no official steps - such as a Material Change of Use application to council - taken, despite plenty of time to do so.

“Any change made, and any successful outcome for the defendant in Planning and Environment Court, or any other step they may take, would not retrospectively alter the debt that has already been levied,” he said.

Mr Cashin also said he did not understand how Mr Chang could lodge a counterclaim saying council owed his business money instead.

“That does make sense to me,” he said.

Judge Clarke said at face value, the rates and charges had been levied in accordance with the Local Government Act 2012.

“It seems to me, on the basis of the material filed (by the defendant), those arguments seem to lack some merit,” he said.

Mr Chang also indicated to the court he may hire another lawyer with more experience to represent Chang Holdings in the matter with council.

Judge Clarke said that in the interest of justice, he would not make a summary judgment yet and allowed one further adjournment to allow the issues be “crystallised and resolved”.

“Mr Chang relies on his inability to understand some relatively basic concepts, once again, that really must be taken at face value because he otherwise seems to be able to run a business,” he said.

Judge Clarke said Mr Chang told him on the last occasion he ran a business in Brisbane.

“So I have some reservations about that,” he said.

He adjourned the matter to September 3 with a direction for all material to be filed seven days prior to the next court date.

Judge Clarke added he “was not fully convinced there is a triable issue ” over the change of use.

Mr Chang also told the court his son lived in the motel as caretaker.

HOTEL HISTORY

In 1993 the hotel sold for $1.9 million and then for $1.5 million in 1988, before it was sold to current owners, Chang Holdings in 1996 for $3 million.

In February 2014, The Morning Bulletin reported the hotel was closed with "no vacancy" signs on the doors and silver chairs bobbing in the pool.

In April 2014, the Rockhampton Plaza Hotel International was temporarily closed so it could undergo a serious refurbishment program with plans to reopen around mid September to early October 2014.

The last review for the 3.5 star motel was in November 2015 where it was reported to be “very run-down”.

Chang Holdings shareholder and director James Chang told The Morning Bulletin in 2019 he had plans for a $1.6 billion, 38 story high-rise building which would include apartment hotels, a school, gymnasium, hotel management college, a five level (4,000 sqm each) shopping centre, a 1600 sqm rooftop restaurant and entertainment venues.

The Morning Bulletin reported Vision Hotels took over management of the hotel in December 2019 and job seekers were encouraged to apply for jobs for when it opened.

The hotel was planned to reopen in early March, following a $100,000 to $150,000 extensive refurbishment and repair process.

This partnership dissolved in March and Chang Holdings was reportedly looking for new lessees.