Travers ‘The Candyman’ Beynon’s neighbours ‘not trying to stop parties’

Gold Coast tobacco tycoon Travers “The Candyman” Beynon’s neighbours have refuted claims they tried to stop him throwing notorious parties at his so-called Candy Shop Mansion and are liable to pay him damages for it, according to court documents.

GOLD Coast tobacco tycoon Travers “The Candyman” Beynon’s neighbours have refuted claims they tried to stop him throwing notorious parties at his so-called Candy Shop Mansion and are liable to pay him damages for it.

Four members of the body corporate committee at the River Cove estate at Helensvale, argue in defence documents filed in court, that they have not acted negligently or in bad faith when instructing a law firm to advise on amending the estate’s by-laws.

Travers ‘The Candyman’ Beynon takes neighbour to court

Candyman claims council is bullying him

Candyman’s Christmas soiree true to form

Travers Beynon and guests at one of his annual Candy Shop Mansion parties.

Jeff Samuels, Alan Brown, James Blackledge and Robert Waugh state in their defence to the District Court claim by Mr Beynon’s company, Travers Development, that the claim is “embarrassing and liable to be struck out”.

Mr Beynon alleges in his claim that the four committee members “improperly used their position as Committee members to pursue an agenda of changes to the By-Laws that sought to unfairly target” and “deliberately target” him, to block his “annual pre-Christmas party”.

The four committee members deny the allegations made in Mr Beynon’s claim filed on September 19 that they used their positions to target Mr Beynon and his parties.

A screenshot from new movie of footage from Travers 'Candyman' Beynon's December, 2017 Freaks Unleashed invite-only free party at his Candy Shop Mansion home on the water in Helensvale.

They “deny that (they) devised new proposed By-Laws” because Gold Coast law firm OMB “were engaged to review the existing by-laws”, according to the defence filed on October 22.

Mr Beynon is suing the four men for $47,645 each. and has asked the court to declare that they breached their fiduciary duty and an injunction restraining three of them – excluding Mr Blackledge – from continuing to act on the committee. No date has been set to hear the case.

One member, James Blackledge denies that he had a “particular dislike” of the fact that Mr Benyon’c company used its property “for a large party preceding Christmas each year”.

They argue they only created a working group to help communicate with OMB.

Mr Beynon claims that OMB was instructed to “significantly amend and redraft a number of the current by-laws”, including “new clauses regarding noise” and “events”.

Mr Beynon’s claim alleges that in an email on June 15 last year to Mr Beynon’s lawyers, Nyst Legal, committee member James Blackledge wrote: “I just don’t like him (Beynon) for several reasons. I don’t have to like him (and) there is no law that says I have to like him.”

The defence states that Mr Blackledge’s “personal dislike of Mr Benyon had no bearing on his decision to vote in favour of engaging OMB” at a committee meeting on July 12 last year.

The defence states that Mr Blackledge’s email dated June 15 also states that Mr Blackledge said “I don’t have a personal vendetta against him” by Mr Beynon’s lawyers did not include that line in their claim.

Originally published as Travers ‘The Candyman’ Beynon’s neighbours ‘not trying to stop parties’