Controversial Cambria Green proposal wins fresh court victory, ruling to pay AG’s costs quashed

The controversial, Chinese-backed Cambria Green development – proposed to be built at a massive parcel of land near Swansea – has enjoyed another court victory. LATEST >>

• Cambria Green mega resort plans to be sent back to commission for planning approval
• Conservationists concerned new laws could clear way for Cambria Green

THE proponents behind the controversial Cambria Green development have enjoyed another legal victory, with an order they pay the Attorney-General’s appeal costs now quashed.

On Thursday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court overturned the costs element of a decision handed down in December last year.

That judgment had ruled in favour of the proposed Chinese-backed development, with Justice Stephen Estcourt determining the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) must hear an application concerning the rezoning of land near Swansea.

If that application is approved by the TPC, the pathway could soon be cleared for the $138 million, 3000ha development to press ahead.

Cambria Green resort project at Dolphin Sands.

But as part of the December ruling, Justice Estcourt also decided Cambria Green and its co-applicants must pay costs of the Attorney-General – who had intervened in the case against the developers.

Justice Estcourt said Cambria Green should have been aware of an issue surrounding landowner consent, which had led to the TPC’s initial decision that it didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Now, following an appeal by Cambria Green and its co-appellants, Chief Justice Alan Blow, Justice Michael Brett and Acting Justice Shane Marshall have found they were denied procedural fairness before the TPC on the issue of landowner consent.

As a result, the judges ruled the previous costs order should now be quashed.

Justice Brett said no fresh orders as to costs had yet been made.

Proponent Ronald Hu. Picture: RICHARD JUPE

In his judgment, he said the appellants had lodged evidence showing Ronald Hu – the director of Cambria Green and a resident of Australia with day-to-day responsibility of the proposed development – was the “controlling mind” of the project.

He said Mr Hu, who owns three of the 12 Cambria Green titles, had responsibility for the rezoning application on behalf of the other landowners – and that this was an issue that could have been resolved before the TPC.

The Cambria Green plans include a luxury hotel, 200 villas, a golf course, a conference centre, plus retirement facilities with a crematorium.

The rezoning application currently before the TPC will be heard in Hobart on a date to be revealed.

More from court this week

‘Cloak and dagger’: Jacqui Lambie unfair dismissal trials wraps up

A “CLOAK and dagger” court case waged against Jacqui Lambie by two of her former employees has drawn to a close – but the outcome won’t be known for months.

Rob and Fern Messenger, who claim they were unfairly dismissed by the senator in 2017, delivered their closing addresses before the Federal Court of Australia on Tuesday.

Mr Messenger, who was employed as Senator Lambie’s chief-of-staff, accused his former boss of “deceptive behaviour” and “malevolence” as their relationship deteriorated.

But Senator Lambie’s lawyer Nick Harrington said his accusations were a “load of nonsense”.

“This case degenerates into a cloak and dagger case when the Messengers … talk about the malevolence of Senator Lambie. There is simply no basis for that allegation,” he said.

“There are no objective facts in this case to support that kind of finding.”

Mr Harrington also criticised the Messengers’ actions in asking a former junior staff member to sign a Public Interest Disclosure complaining about the Senator, which they sent to then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2017.

TAS_MER_NEWS_MESSENGER_28AUG17

“That event shines a very bright line on Mr and Mrs Messenger and how cunning and devious they were prepared to be at the end of this employment relationship,” he told the court.

Mrs Messenger, who worked as Senator Lambie’s office manager, said they were not sacked for any legitimate reason – but because they had complained about her behaviour and “misuse of Commonwealth funds” to the Prime Minister and because “she didn’t need us anymore”.

She also denied shredding any documents while on sick leave, as alleged earlier in the trial, and said any documents she left in the secure bin were “of no importance whatsoever”.

Mr Messenger claimed his wife had felt “in physical danger” during an argument with the senator in early 2017, and that she’d begun a “sham” mediation process as a result.

“This was not reasonable management action,” he argued.

He also argued that Senator Lambie had attempted to smear their reputations, impacting their ability to secure other employment and causing them to suffer “serious repercussions, reprisal and harm”.

Justice John Snaden described elements of the trial as having been “a little unorthodox” and “a matter of some complexity, this went for a very long time”.

He said it would be a matter of months before he delivered his judgment.

Follow @ambervwilson